Haha, someone gets it, the USA simply can never get its way, if they fail in Ukraine, they will fail everywhere
Trump 2.0 official thread
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
For those calling it a staged trap, did you guys actually watch the whole thing or just that 2 minute clip? I'm starting from the beginning and a few minutes in I can already feel Trump fuming at Zelensky.
The opening statement by Trump goes something like this: We have a great deal, looking forward to that. I've spoken with Russia, Putin, and we'd like to bring this to a close, which is something you want as well. Both sides have had thousands die, kudos to you for fighting so hard, you must be so proud of them, but we need to put an end to this war.
Then Zelensky opens with this: Also looking forward to the deal, hope this will be a real security guarantee for Ukraine. When you said enough to the war, it's important Putin started it, he's a killer and terrorist, and of course no compromises with a killer regarding our territories.
So basically Trump starts cordially, talks about how he's been talking to Putin and how much he wants a deal to end the war. Zelensky then open with how Putin is a terrorist and you can't negotiate with him, essentially outright rejecting Trump's wishes and accusing him of negotiating with terrorists. I mean, regardless of how true you think Zelensky's statement is, you just can't say that to Trump's face!
Trump was willing to move past that, he reaffirmed military aides and whatnot. Things really started breaking down when a Polish reporter asked Trump a question about what he would say to people who say that he's aligning himself too much with Putin. Trump answered IMO pretty realistically, saying "you want me to say bad things about Putin, but I want a deal, and you can't just say a bunch of terrible things about him and then say here let's have a deal." Vance then supported Trump, saying "for 4 years we had a president who called Putin all sorts of names and we get the start of a war and no end, president Trump is trying to perform diplomacy and that's what makes the United States strong."
For the whole time everyone was basically talking to the audience, presenting their views, but at this point of time Zelensky decided to directly engage Vance with some very sharp line of questioning and I think we all saw what happened next. What Vance said to prompt Zelensky's attack was clearly in defense of Trump, and was not particularly cutting toward Ukraine/Zelensky. His retort only turned sharp when Zelensky attacked him first.
The opening statement by Trump goes something like this: We have a great deal, looking forward to that. I've spoken with Russia, Putin, and we'd like to bring this to a close, which is something you want as well. Both sides have had thousands die, kudos to you for fighting so hard, you must be so proud of them, but we need to put an end to this war.
Then Zelensky opens with this: Also looking forward to the deal, hope this will be a real security guarantee for Ukraine. When you said enough to the war, it's important Putin started it, he's a killer and terrorist, and of course no compromises with a killer regarding our territories.
So basically Trump starts cordially, talks about how he's been talking to Putin and how much he wants a deal to end the war. Zelensky then open with how Putin is a terrorist and you can't negotiate with him, essentially outright rejecting Trump's wishes and accusing him of negotiating with terrorists. I mean, regardless of how true you think Zelensky's statement is, you just can't say that to Trump's face!
Trump was willing to move past that, he reaffirmed military aides and whatnot. Things really started breaking down when a Polish reporter asked Trump a question about what he would say to people who say that he's aligning himself too much with Putin. Trump answered IMO pretty realistically, saying "you want me to say bad things about Putin, but I want a deal, and you can't just say a bunch of terrible things about him and then say here let's have a deal." Vance then supported Trump, saying "for 4 years we had a president who called Putin all sorts of names and we get the start of a war and no end, president Trump is trying to perform diplomacy and that's what makes the United States strong."
For the whole time everyone was basically talking to the audience, presenting their views, but at this point of time Zelensky decided to directly engage Vance with some very sharp line of questioning and I think we all saw what happened next. What Vance said to prompt Zelensky's attack was clearly in defense of Trump, and was not particularly cutting toward Ukraine/Zelensky. His retort only turned sharp when Zelensky attacked him first.
Seems like this. Based on his past negotiation tactics, he likely believes he could get everything using his so-called Art of the Deal maximum pressure tactics, allies and adversaries alike. That was how he dealt with both Europe and China during his first term. Except his hands are now no longer tied by neocon Republicans like Bolton and Pompeo. He has a much freer hand now.
Yet, pretty much everyone in DC agrees that China is the main adversary. Regardless of Trump, GOP neocons, or libs, they all see China as the best bogeyman to help advance their respective political goals. Being tough on China is used to justify everything, even if such objectives may have nothing to do with US-China Relations. In other words, it is politically correct to hate the SeeSeePeeChyna. Thus, a grand showdown with China could give Trump political points as well. It is just that he is betting on a different approach to force allies to stand in line. Just an observation here.
Otherwise, how do we explain that whilst his UN Ambassador is now voting in line with Russia and he himself is humiliating Zelensky in public, his State Department is still threatening Thailand for deporting Uighurs and continuing to support Philippines and Taiwan? Clearly there is now a different approach to Russia versus China. So China still seems to be his main focus for an ultimate fight.
Last edited:
I think Chinese urban elites and some top decision makers still have an unrealistic illusion of making a deal with Trump, especially among those who grew up in the 80s being heavily influenced by neoliberalism. It is just hard for many naive-minded west-worshipping urban business class Chinese to realise that when push comes to shove, and U.S. could become just like any other 19th Century predatory imperial powers.
Last edited:
Watch full, not just fun 10 min. It wasn't.
Most of the time it was a reasonable event, with Trump avoiding journalist attempts to make him bite his counterpart.
It began arguably as a misunderstanding, with Zelensky taking personal Vance criticizing previous admin and media, rather than him.
I.e. basically his English problem.
I have a question for you and @Deino. I've always conceptualized the relationship between the US and its "allies" as an abusive marriage, where Republican presidents like Bush and Trump are the punching phase and Democratic presidents like Obama and Biden the flowers and chocolate phase of the abuse.
You're getting punched around the kitchen right now so it might not be the best time to ask, but I'll do so anyway: What happens when Trump is out and the Democrat shows up with flowers and chocolate?
The problem with Zelensky is that he has been emboldened for 3 straight years in his entitled attitude. What transpired today is very characteristic of every other meeting of Zelensky, where he berates his EU/US interlocutors for not doing enough, engages in revisionist history, and fearmongers about Putin conquering all Europe if Ukraine falls.
Biden admin (and EU) have tolerated Zelensky's entitled attitude because they see it as a good investment for killing Russians, but Trump admin has a different view of US interests and they see the Ukraine project as a bad investment. Consequently Trump/Vance weren't having any of the standard Zelensky talking points - they probably see it as manipulative - and so they lashed out.
Biden admin (and EU) have tolerated Zelensky's entitled attitude because they see it as a good investment for killing Russians, but Trump admin has a different view of US interests and they see the Ukraine project as a bad investment. Consequently Trump/Vance weren't having any of the standard Zelensky talking points - they probably see it as manipulative - and so they lashed out.
Then why don't you as a proud Canuck speak loudly on this matter: national sovereignty of Canada. Instead, Canucks like you regardless of political party or even leanings are so cucked to support the insane war that's Ukraine vs Russia which was by the way decades in the making. To suggest and say otherwise ignores the incontrovertible truth that NATO expansion is one of the cause but not the sole cause of this conflict to begin with.
When Soviet Russia collapsed from its own hoisted petard, why was NATO not disbanded? Why and what were the reason(s) for the MILITARY ORGANIZATION DESIGNED AND ESTABLISHED TO DETER SOVIET RUSSIAN EXPANSION kept on expanding and moving out of area operations? Clue: to remain and stay relevant. It's well documented that during the first expansion of the alliance during under the Clinton Administration the U.S. Military establishment (which was far more conservative back then) was apoplectic when the military leadership learned about the announced expansion of NATO. Even the infamous (mockingly called Clinton stooge) Gen.Wes Clark who was the J-5 of the Joint Chiefs (rank Lt.Gen) had a shouting match with deputy Secretary Richard "Dick" Holbrooke. Dick told Clark that the decision has been made by the U.S. President and the order was final. There were strong inference that the top leadership of the military was changed to be more amenable and sympathetic to NATO expansion cause, hence the promotion of top General officers into the position of power. You got men like Gen. Macaffery (Highway of death, Iraq) chosen to lead the DEA. Wes Clark picked to lead replace Barry as the J-5 much to the opposition within the military and most surprisingly from his own service branch the Army and its head: Gen.Reimer. We then have the first non-American born CJS in Gen.Shalikashvili who couldn't shake off his thick Georgian accent even in his later years - people in the military at the time strongly believed that his elevation as the CJS was a strategic move by the civilian leadership due to him being a well-respected military leader but also sympathetic and bias towards his roots a.k.a. Europe.
When Russia was at its nadir under the wise and sober leadership of Boris Yeltsin the NATO expansion happened under his watch and as his country was under the brink of economic disaster, destitution somehow the Russian threat became more intransigent and acute?
As Sir Isaac Newton's 2nd laws of motion states: For every there is an equal and opposite force reaction. And that reaction is a man the entire western world villifies: Vladimir Putin.
Did we somehow assume Russia would elect Garry Kasparov, the ambitious and self-aggrandizing former chess champion? Or the more unhinged and ultra-nationalistic candidate in Alexander Lebed (railed against NATO expansion) and the same can be said Yedvenev Zyuganov who lost a "controversial" election against Boris "the sober" Yeltsin back in 1996.
Canadians don't have a problem consuming mostly American shows, movies, sports, politics (most support the Democratic party). Diefenbaker was told in no uncertain terms that Canada was allowed to build and develop its own Aerospace industry so it decided to scrap it's Avro arrow fighter plane program. The U.S. then hoovered all the technical data, the brains behind the project and the rest is history. And yet people like you are surprised and waking up to the fact that Canada may not maintain its sovereignty? Since when was Canada FULLY SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT?
Canada have been kissing the ring of the American presidents since the time of Lester B. Pearson, Diefenbaker. Not even Trudeau Sr. could resist the American overlords as all he could come up with was his famous line he made in a speech back in 1969 when he said: "Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt."
Our world has changed, the challenge of America has become acute therefore old decaying alliances which hold no true raw and hard power is being turned over its head. The military is pathetically weak same as Europe. There's no sense of pride or urgency even among the supposed hardcore rah-rah Canadians to want to sign up with the country's military.