Trump has a mandate to stop financing the war.
It certainly seems that way, yes. Where is it implicit or explicit in that he has to capitulate to Russia's demands and try to exclude Ukraine from negotiations about the war in their country?
The mineral deal would not have worked as long as Europe planned peacekeeping troops, as Russia would not agree to that and would attack them.
1 - without some peacekeeping troops, and other security concessions, the deal will not work because Ukraine will not agree to it. It's almost like there needs to be a negotiation, here.
2 - That's Russia's STARTING POINT. The point of a negotiation is to start from what's wanted, and move to what will be acceptable. Ukraine starts from the point that it won't accept peace unless it gets all its land back, but I can't see that surviving a genuine negotiation at this stage, either.
Macron's "dear Donalds" and Starmer's arm touching, were to try and trick Trump into agreeing to something that would have led, assuming peacekeeping troops, to the US getting into a war with Russia; but Trump, thinking (or pretending to think?) that Russia would accept peacekeeping forces, played along until he saw that Zelensky had no interest in stopping the killing but insists on recapturing the lost territory.
No, no, and no. There is not attempt to 'trick' Trump, there's been an open expectation - based on broad and specific history - that the US would want to be part of any peacekeeping activity. As that becomes less likely, Europe is preparing to commit more. That's not a trick, there's no attempt at deception.
Nobody wants a war with Russia. However, everybody but Trump appears to be concerned that capitulating to Putin just makes another war with Russia involved at some point in the near future more likely. The US is unlikely to be directly affected, militarily, by that, so Trump doesn't give a shit - which is his remit. He's shaping the US presence on the World Stage - or, rather, in the wings instead of being on-stage.
Zelensky has a mandate, too - to defend Ukraine's integrity and peace by both diplomatic and military means. If he sees the possibility for peace and restoring some or all of Ukraine's territory, it's his moral obligation to try to take it. Again, that's not deception, that's his job, that's what he was elected to do.
Paraphrasing what Z was saying in the buildup: "Putin invaded our land and we hope you can help us push him out" (continue arming us).
Yep. That's what the US has been doing up until now, that's what he hopes the US will continue doing.
I think if Vance hadn't mentioned the forced conscription and propaganda visits, it may not have turned into what it did.
It wasn't the conscription or the propoganda visits that escalated the meeting into a confrontation - it was Vance (and, by implication, Trump who followed it up) suggesting that Putin's assertions were believable, and implying that the war was Ukraine's and Zelensky's fault in defiance of reality. Blaming the man for his country being attacked, and saying that he should just accept Putin's word that he won't attack when he's already breached exactly that promise to exactly that country to start this conflict was just insulting, and emblematic of the current US administration's attitude which is disdain.
In short, though, we now know that Trump is not going to be bribed into helping to continue the war.
No, but he does expect to be paid, either by Russia for selling Ukraine down the river, or by Ukraine for not selling them down the river. It's an extortion, pure and simple, but that's what we should expect from a con-man.
Here he is the next day, summarizing what he thinks (from 1 minute onward): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t21OERWmxUY
I saw it. He lies about the prospects, he lies about the implications of the current situation, and he blatantly sides with Russia. He's scum, he's acting like a coward and a bully, and he's selling Ukraine's future and the USA's heritage for a few roubles and shitty red baseball cap.
O.
