>"There is no change to other Maxar customer programs," the company said.
We're talking about a public program, publicly funded, serviced by a private company.
This was revealed to be the formal agreement precisely 1 hour before the planned meeting.
Russian state media were invited into the Oval Office for the meeting.
Then Trump set about lying to Zelensky's face about how Zelensky started this war, about how much aid had been granted, and about other things. He appeared to be attempting to ritualistically humiliate Zelensky and Ukraine, demanding that he kowtow and suggesting that Ukraine owed Trump half a trillion dollars.
Zelensky was very upfront about needing security guarantees from the US and a permanent brokered peace to sign anything, not just the idea of seeking a ceasefire.
He didn't get that far. Because he refused to cry on camera and essentially offer an unconditional surrender to Trump, he was driven out of the White House. Trump then proceeded to comment about how this was all a set up, that he needed to illustrate to the world how terribly ungrateful Ukraine was, that "That's why I kept this going so long".
Do you think some mining rights are a fair trade for 'security guarentees' of us going to war with Russia? I think Zelensky is way overplaying his hand. I'm not sending our kids to die in defense of Ukraine because of a 3rd party to the deal.
Refusing to continue aid for no reason other than the US realized they might be able to get more out of it, there is a reasonable argument is betrayal.
It's betrayal, ww3, my children marched off to world war, my wife will be raped. I've heard it all. The viciousness against not funding conscripts going into the meat shredder makes me think the war mongers must be desperate their blood sacrifice (and the accompanying money train) is coming to an end.
Ah, I thought it was Russia who betrayed Ukraine, per your words yeah?
But of course, my reading comprehension isn't that bad. You are genuinely trying to argue that the people decrying this betrayal are war mongers, intent on extending this war; never mind who actually instigated the war, there is no reason to call them war mongers. You don't help your argument when you call your opponents names, especially without any merit.
I think the goal is to hurt Russian corrupt officials and mob by taking away these black market margins.
Not donating more stuff maybe.
But cutting off targeting, intelligence, satellites, and other enablers is pretty much betrayal!
Other countries have bought US equipment with certain capabilities and donated that stuff to Ukraine.
This makes the US an unreliable provider of military equipment.
Yes, of course the US has the ability to cut of things like this, but I doubt people buying HIMARS every feared they'd cutoff from enablers by the US as a negotiation tactic.
The US probably also has backdoors in some of the stuff, but using such backdoors is a one time event. Nobody will trust you afterwards.
1 hour before, they learned they had nothing to gain because there were no security guarantees, and that they would need to establish formal changes to the agreement during the meeting.
During the meeting, they learned that politely asking for formal changes to the agreement would trigger performative anger, denial, and insults. That Trump would get self-righteous about his extortion attempt, and that it wasn't "Your money or or life!", but "Your money, now!"
A mostly worthless and symbolic agreement that primarily served to fluff certain egos.
>and Zelensky refused
He didn't refuse! He was there at the White House to sign the agreement! Then Trump and Vance kicked him out without offering him the chance to sign it!
Now maybe this is all true. But if it is, knowing how transactional international politics is, why not just sign the fluff agreement and take the bruised ego? It's their right either way. I just find it interesting and a bit bizarre.
I think the HN crowd is missing a bit of the more democratic sentiment here, that after years of support we can't keep fueling foreign nations based on blame for others' murder, there needs to be movement towards resolution and if not, Ukraine can shine and show us their independence they're proud of. Personally I don't see this ending unless Zelensky is willing to take a bruised ego.
You skipped over this portion. He didn't refuse.
"He didn't refuse" is the new propaganda to cover up how badly Zelensky fucked up in diplomacy. They sat the man down to sign it, then what we witnessed happened instead.
Trump was calling Zelenskiy a "dictator with a 4% approval rating" (it was 52%, now 68%) the week before! He and all his cabinet appointees keep equivocating on who started the war. He keeps lying about how much value has been given to Ukraine (it's less than half of the 350b he claims). He went on a tirade about how he and Putin "went through the Russia hoax together". Vance has leaked text messages from months go saying he "won't even take calls from Ukraine".
>“Dude I won’t even take calls from Ukraine,” he told Johnson in October, about three weeks after House Republicans blocked additional aid to help Kyiv repel the Russian invasion. “Two very senior guys reached out to me. The head of their intel. The head of the Air Force. Bitching about F16s.”
Trump was never truly interested in a fair deal. He wants an arrangement that will let him suck up to Putin while quickly claiming success no matter how dogshit the terms are, and Zelenskiy isn't enough of a pushover to give him that.
* Trump has a chip on his shoulder over this first impeachment and the Muller investigation
* He sees this whole thing as a bother, and Zelensky a nuisance
That oval office "mean girls" meeting makes total sense now; both Trump and Vance feel the above. They just want quick credit for a quick end and care about nothing else.
Your rape analogy is backwards. Two men ganged up on someone and you want to claim a grimace as a smile.
"Even an artist can clearly see" is extremely ironic.
Ukrainians have a very bad history with "politicians that bend the knee when the screws are turned on them".
There's only so much lying you should expect the Ukrainians to sit there and take. Trump going on and on about how much Putin wants peace in front of him is just fucking absurd.
Ukraine is a war zone under martial law. Informal ratings are likely even less reliable than in more stable place.
Properly administered democratic elections can capture approval. But those were canceled in Ukraine (constitutionally) due to the war and martial law. Their most reliable capture of approval, was canceled!
None of the polling suggested that. They suggested Clinton had a 2-3 point popular vote lead. She did in fact have a 2-3 point popular vote lead. It's not the polling's fault that it's measuring something that the US doesn't actually use to select the President.
Outlets that did take state polls into consideration and tried to simulate the electoral vote, namely 538, gave Trump a basically 1/3 chance to win.
I know the thread you are talking about and this is a very hyperbolic misrepresentation of that exchange. Anyone reading this would be free to check your comment history and understand why "the HN crowd" responded in the way they did.
Would you say this regardless of what the deal was? Am curious if there is some line that could be crossed that would make the deal unreasonable. The argument as it stands sounds like the logic of an abuser to those of us who felt the deal that was offered was in itself a slap in the face.
If a party doesn't consent to the agreement, they would not say be obligated to provide military aid against their will.
He didn't have cut off aid and intelligence. Zelensky didn't MAKE him do it. It was his right and he chose this.
So now he gets to wear that label.