Up until that point there had been 40 minutes of cordial discussion. I don't think it was intended that the talks would break down and the deal would fall through.
But congratulations, you win. I will delete that link rather than be drawn into an unrelated conversation about the history of one man's views.
Edit to clarify what I mean: You could have written that you are of the same opinion, independent of who that is. But instead you hide it, as if you had come to that conclusion totally on your own.
When a reply mentioned unrelated past statements from the same person, it was clear that they wanted to tar the statement by association rather than discuss it substantively.
I believe that mentioning that he is a virulent racist who is actively seeking a much more brutal and unjust world is critical to the substance of his other political writing. These are not unrelated statements.
But frankly in today's world where we've got people making serious decisions in government who are avowed segregationists I think it is rather important to mention when people oppose the Civil Rights Act when considering their opinion on political news.
Hanania's opinions here are not one weird quirk. They are central to the modern GOP's project.
It seems like they were having a pretty good meeting, right up until Vance decides to interject his stupid talking points, and then the exchange between Vance and Zelensky gets Trump to launch into his bizarre grievance tirade. It's like dementia was in full-self-driving mode and had no brakes.
Maybe Vance got what he wanted out of this meeting, but I could plausibly believe that Trump wasn't planning for it to blow up like this -- he just didn't have the level of self-control or self-awareness to stop himself. Which isn't exactly a good look either.
Trump and Vance are directing their answers at the reporter. Vance's reply does not criticize Zelensky at all.
Then Zelensky interjects to directly confront Vance about his answer. That was the moment when it became argumentative.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the righteous fury that Zelensky feels. His country was invaded. But I think it was a blunder to pick a fight over Vance's answer.
If he was asked a question on American politics I would tend to agree but this is Americans here espousing their views on Ukrainian politics and then expecting to not hear the Ukrainian side to it.
His point that Russia has not abided by previous agreements is well-taken. Clearly any future cease fire will need better enforcement provisions. But this is putting the cart before the horse: the deal that should have been signed today was not a cease fire, it was a mineral rights agreement. If and when a cease fire is on the table that Zelensky feels will be unenforceable, then he can criticize its provisions.
I, for one, don’t want to keep dumping money on him throwing his citizens into the meat grinder.
All that being said though it doesn't change anything about how the meeting went down. I've been lucky enough where I've literally never worked at a place where that would've been acceptable behavior, I've seen people talked to for less. To do that then double down more later was pretty embarrassing. Zelensky pushing back on their view on diplomacy in Ukraine didn't seem like a particular insult to me to make the meltdown make sense.
as sorta an aside: I was especially confused about them getting mad at Zelensky for telling them how to feel but as a native English speaker saying "you're going to feel it" means more you're going to feel the effects not you're going to feel a specific emotion (like after a hard workout at the gym if someone told me "you're going to feel it tomorrow" it would then be really weird for me to interpret that as them telling me how to feel emotionally). Trump responding he was going to feel strong was surreal and confusing to me. Especially with Zelensky as a non-native speaker it was weird to see Trump be the one struggling more with language. I can sorta understand agreeing with Trump politically but I just don't see how that was an acceptable or even normal way to react.
Anyway, that's a long post. I've watched the whole video and watching it just makes me feel like I've been taking crazy pills so I've thought about it a lot today.
Edit: and I forgot the whole thanking thing. Zelensky famously has thanked the US for aid and it seems like something they should know (even I was aware of it and confused while watching the video). But then Vance just pivoted to being mad about something else. Like people are talking about this like it's a policy dispute but I feel like I just watched some someone's villain arc on "The Bachelor", they seemed like reality TV characters.
Sure. They can do what they want and so can we. We don’t owe them anything. And honestly, in a way we’re just enablers at this point. We’re enabling them to fight on and enabling them to pointless throw away more lives.
Neither does he, Ukraine just wants real security guarantees.
TRUMP: "But you see, I think it’s good for the American people to see what’s going on. I think it’s very important. That’s why I kept this going so long."
TRUMP: "All right, I think we’ve seen enough. What do you think? This is going to be great television."
I just watched Trump greet Zelensky entering the Whitehouse with words like "and he even got all dressed up", foreshadowing Tulsi Gabbard's journalist boyfriend asking Z why he doesn't wear a suit.
It was definitely a planned media ambush intended to undermine support for Z and Ukraine.
Also, Vance's claim that Trump is the first one to actually engage in diplomacy is pretty wild, considering that Trump called Zelensky a dictator and essentially succumbs to all of Putin's demands, going so far as to side with Russia in the UN.