I wanted to share some reactions to the “fiery exchange” between Presidents Trump and Zelensky today. First, I don’t believe that either of these men should be president of any country. One is a real estate developer and reality show host and the other a stand-up comic. There are issues of temperament and protocol involved. It was a mess.
Second, and in this case I’m speaking as someone who has meetings including people with as many as six different mother tongues every darned day, at one point President Trump was speaking colloquially (“hold the cards”) and President Zelensky clearly did not understand what was being said.
President Zelensky did not do any good for his cause.
Very bad judgment on the part of Zelensky. He should have known that if they appeared jointly in front of TV it would go bad as either or both Trump and Vance would say stuff he would find hard to let pass. His mastery of English is clearly not that great and with Vance in the mix it would be 2:1. I am actually not sure why he went to speak with Trump at all. The UN vote made Trump’s POV pretty clear.
Steve
The biggest thing that happened, far more important than the argument between Trump and Zelenskyy, was the fact that virtually every European leader, without the merest pause to think, immediately jumped on the Zelenskyy bandwagon. That marks the end of NATO and the US-UK Special Relationship. Free of the dead weight of Europe, the US can now freely negotiate the new order with Russia and China.
By the way, Starmer has removed all pictures of Churchill from the House of Commons and government offices. Obama did the same, removing pictures of Churchill from the White House, when he took power. Communists everywhere think alike, and have common enemies, always free peoples.
As to Trump’s suitability for office, I think it is obvious that he is an absolute necessity. The US government is so utterly corrupt and incompetent that a major purge and downsizing is mandatory.
If you don’t like The Donald, you are going to be appalled at eight (twelve?) years of J. D.
That supports the observation I’ve made above—that Zelensky has been encouraged by European leaders and, possibly, the Biden Administration to act in the way that he did.
I agree with that but it doesn’t mean that I have to like Trump and his comportment.
Dave Schuler: at one point President Trump was speaking colloquially (“hold the cards”) and President Zelensky clearly did not understand what was being said.
Zelensky knew exactly what Trump meant. His reply meant that Ukrainians are fighting for their freedom and their very lives. Trump treats everything as a personal transaction, where values such as democracy and liberty have no significance. That Ukraine is being bullied by a much stronger neighbor just means, to Trump, too bad so sad. Trump is willfully ignorant of (among many things) the problem of unchecked aggression.
Trump and Vance engineered the situation where the only opportunity Zelensky would have to directly talk to Trump was in front of the press. Trump wants other leaders to prostrate themselves before him. When Trump went on about how he could trust Putin, Zelensky had little choice but to express his opinion that Putin couldn’t be trusted, and that security guarantees would have to be provided to Ukraine for any lasting peace. Trump is the guy who thinks that ethnically cleansing the Palestinians and building gambling resorts on their graves is a reasonable proposal. Yet, because of the power of the United States, other leaders have to pretend he is a rational actor.
“The way to have gone in there,” Zakaria joked, “is first, you begin by saying, ‘President Trump, you are a genius. You have completely transformed the landscape. I have with me the highest order of merit — Ukraine has never created a civilian honor this big — for you.’”
“You have a big medal, put it on him, then say to him, ‘I look forward to working with you,’” Zakaria added.
You do what you need to do. Sadly, in this case I think that’s just about what President Zelensky needed to do.
Dave Schuler: Sadly, in this case I think that’s just about what President Zelensky needed to do.
Right. Because Trump and America have no agency. They shouldn’t have to thank Ukraine for bearing the brunt of Russian aggression, protecting NATO’s flank, and degrading Russia’s military. Trump can go on making stuff up about how Zelensky is a dictator and that Ukraine started the war. ‘Cause. It’s like dealing with Caligula: All the Jews had to do was put a statue of Caligula in the Holy Temple. What’s the problem with that?!
Ukraine’s position and the U. S.’s are not symmetrical. Ukraine is fighting for its survival as a nation and it’s not winning. The U. S. has few interests in Ukraine other than the abstract one of defending the rule of law, something we have violated far too frequently over the last 35 years. I think we should support Ukraine for just that reason but I also opposed our bombing of Serbia, invasion of Iraq, and bombing of Libya on similar grounds.
Like it or not Zelensky came as a supplicant but his comportment was not that of a supplicant. I could speculate about why that might have been but I’ll leave it at “he’s a rookie”.
Dave Schuler: The U. S. has few interests in Ukraine other than the abstract one of defending the rule of law
As if the rule of law is just an abstract principle without practical implications, rather than the basis of stable relations between countries.
Why do WE violate it then?
Dave Schuler: Why do WE violate it then?
The bombing of Serbia and of Libya were argued to be justified under customary international law. The invasion of Iraq was argued to be justified under the law of self defense.
Yes, the United States should adhere more closely to legal constraints; however, that in no way justifies Russia’s naked aggression. The world community can’t be rendered helpless in the face of such a threat because of the imperfections of its members.
In Libya there was a Security Council resolution which we violated, acting to bring down the Qaddafi regime rather than the narrow “defend civilians” Security Council mandate. In the case of Serbia we went venue-shopping. Our actions were not authorized by any Security Council resolution but NATO was in agreement about them.
That’s wrong. The message conveyed was that the purpose of international law is not a “rules-based system” but a system in which the rules do not pertain to large, powerful countries.
IMO that does not justify Russian conduct but it does explain it. Part of the solution MUST be that the U. S. needs to be bound by international law as much as we expect Russia and China to be bound by it.
Dave Schuler: In Libya … In the case of Serbia …
While the resolution didn’t authorize overthrowing Qaddafi, it didn’t prohibit it either. The Western powers deemed it necessary to protect civilians. With regards to Serbia, it was justified under customary international law. Refugees were pouring over the border and Serbians were committing atrocities against civilians.
Dave Schuler: The message conveyed was that the purpose of international law is not a “rules-based system” but a system in which the rules do not pertain to large, powerful countries.
The justifications appear pretextual, so you are correct that it tended to weaken international law. Of course, that’s nothing like what Trump and Putin are doing, trashing all norms and destabilizing international stability.