The Atlantic: It Was an Ambush

[Colonoscopy]

Idea proposed is that Trump and company purposefully pushed for a confrontational, nationally televised meeting with Zelensky as an effective pretext for taking a Russia friendly position and subsequent "deal" to end the war.

It Was an Ambush

Today marked one of the grimmest days in the history of American diplomacy.

www.theatlantic.com

Leave aside, if only for a moment, the utter boorishness with which President Donald Trump and Vice President J. D. Vance treated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House today. Also leave aside the spectacle of American leaders publicly pummeling a friend as if he were an enemy. All of the ghastliness inflicted on Zelensky today should not obscure the geopolitical reality of what just happened: The president of the United States ambushed a loyal ally, presumably so that he can soon make a deal with the dictator of Russia to sell out a European nation fighting for its very existence.

Trump’s advisers have already declared the meeting a win for “putting America first,” and his apologists will likely spin and rationalize this shameful moment as just a heated conversation—the kind of thing that in Washington-speak used to be called a “frank and candid exchange.” But this meeting reeked of a planned attack, with Trump unloading Russian talking points on Zelensky (such as blaming Ukraine for risking global war), all of it designed to humiliate the Ukrainian leader on national television and give Trump the pretext to do what he has indicated repeatedly he wants to do: side with Russian President Vladimir Putin and bring the war to an end on Russia’s terms. Trump is now reportedly considering the immediate end of all military aid to Ukraine because of Zelensky’s supposed intransigence during the meeting.

Vance’s presence at the White House also suggests that the meeting was a setup. Vance is usually an invisible backbencher in this administration, with few duties other than some occasional trolling of Trump’s critics. (The actual business of furthering Trump’s policies is apparently now Elon Musk’s job.) This time, however, he was brought in to troll not other Americans, but a foreign leader. Marco Rubio—in theory, America’s top diplomat—was also there, but he sat glumly and silently while Vance pontificated like an obnoxious graduate student.

https://archive.ph/W4mFu#selection-807.0-819.549

 

[Osprey Lion]

Idea proposed is that Trump and company purposefully pushed for a confrontational, nationally televised meeting with Zelensky as an effective pretext for taking a Russia friendly position and subsequent "deal" to end the war.

It Was an Ambush

Today marked one of the grimmest days in the history of American diplomacy.

www.theatlantic.com

Leave aside, if only for a moment, the utter boorishness with which President Donald Trump and Vice President J. D. Vance treated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House today. Also leave aside the spectacle of American leaders publicly pummeling a friend as if he were an enemy. All of the ghastliness inflicted on Zelensky today should not obscure the geopolitical reality of what just happened: The president of the United States ambushed a loyal ally, presumably so that he can soon make a deal with the dictator of Russia to sell out a European nation fighting for its very existence.

Trump’s advisers have already declared the meeting a win for “putting America first,” and his apologists will likely spin and rationalize this shameful moment as just a heated conversation—the kind of thing that in Washington-speak used to be called a “frank and candid exchange.” But this meeting reeked of a planned attack, with Trump unloading Russian talking points on Zelensky (such as blaming Ukraine for risking global war), all of it designed to humiliate the Ukrainian leader on national television and give Trump the pretext to do what he has indicated repeatedly he wants to do: side with Russian President Vladimir Putin and bring the war to an end on Russia’s terms. Trump is now reportedly considering the immediate end of all military aid to Ukraine because of Zelensky’s supposed intransigence during the meeting.

Vance’s presence at the White House also suggests that the meeting was a setup. Vance is usually an invisible backbencher in this administration, with few duties other than some occasional trolling of Trump’s critics. (The actual business of furthering Trump’s policies is apparently now Elon Musk’s job.) This time, however, he was brought in to troll not other Americans, but a foreign leader. Marco Rubio—in theory, America’s top diplomat—was also there, but he sat glumly and silently while Vance pontificated like an obnoxious graduate student.

https://archive.ph/W4mFu#selection-807.0-819.549

Trump and Vance are two disgusting individuals who I feel confident will rot in hell.

 

[Hawki97]

Trump and Vance are two disgusting individuals who I feel confident will rot in hell.

May the lord answer your prayer. Praise be to him.

 

[Hawk_82]

I'm not sure if it was set up or not. But I'm not sure it matters. Zelensky had become a little too empowered by the Biden administration thinking he was owed anything he wanted to defeat Russia. The American people voted for Trump to help stop the war, not continue to enable Zelensky by sending over more money and weapons while the USA goes deeper in debt. Americans don't want to go to WW3 for Ukraine.

I think Trump did want to knock Zelensky down a bit while also showing Putin that he is willing to make a peace deal but also is not a Ukraine apologist.

 

[KFsdisciple]

Yes Ukraine is such a loyal ally! I remember all the amazing help they were in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, we could have never defeated the British without the brave efforts of Vladimir Pochenko and the Ukrainian Army, Navy, and special forces.

How dare we treat such a close and long time ally like that?

 

[joelbc1]

Hawk 82….
Well stated!
Are you going to be the presenter of this year’s “Neville Chamberlain Peace Award”? Who you gonna give it to…. Trump or Vance?

Why in God’s name would you “invite the press” to witness this bullshit….unless it was nothing more than a planned “dog pile” or ambush?

 

[Scott559]

Yes Ukraine is such a loyal ally! I remember all the amazing help they were in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, we could have never defeated the British without the brave efforts of Vladimir Pochenko and the Ukrainian Army, Navy, and special forces.

How dare we treat such a close and long time ally like that?

Should part of the peace process in Ukraine involve lifting sanctions against Russia?

 

[KFsdisciple]

Should part of the peace process in Ukraine involve lifting sanctions against Russia?

Depends on what the goal is…

Is the goal for peace?

As a wartime veteran after three years, the one foot in one foot out strategy of blank checks isn’t working. So, either we need to negotiate for peace or unleash the strongest most capable fighting force in the world.

 

[RonaldMexico]

I'm not sure if it was set up or not. But I'm not sure it matters. Zelensky had become a little too empowered by the Biden administration thinking he was owed anything he wanted to defeat Russia. The American people voted for Trump to help stop the war, not continue to enable Zelensky by sending over more money and weapons while the USA goes deeper in debt. Americans don't want to go to WW3 for Ukraine.

I think Trump did want to knock Zelensky down a bit while also showing Putin that he is willing to make a peace deal but also is not a Ukraine apologist.

1. Helping Ukraine weakens Russia without using American soldiers. Ukraine is an ally, Russia is not.

2. I don’t disagree with knocking him down a peg or pushing Europe to contribute more to the cause. You do it in a private meeting, not in the Oval Office in front of cameras. The clumsy and ham handed way this was carried out was a publicity stunt for Trumps base and a huge PR win for Putin.

 

[Titus Andronicus]

I'm not sure if it was set up or not. But I'm not sure it matters. Zelensky had become a little too empowered by the Biden administration thinking he was owed anything he wanted to defeat Russia. The American people voted for Trump to help stop the war, not continue to enable Zelensky by sending over more money and weapons while the USA goes deeper in debt. Americans don't want to go to WW3 for Ukraine.

I think Trump did want to knock Zelensky down a bit while also showing Putin that he is willing to make a peace deal but also is not a Ukraine apologist.

Zelinsky is almost single-handedly fighting an inevitable war for us. The reason this war is dragging on is because of Biden. He spent an entire term of office trying to push the war out in time, while hoping things were not as they seemed.

We need to build up Zelinsky ... and now more than ever!

and, for the moment, NO peace deal is available. Ukraine either wins or Ukraine (and the US and NATO) loses.

Trump seems to think this is about negotiation. Whoever gave him that idea? Someone must have told him he was good at negotiation, and he believed them.

Wars never have negotiated endings. They have winners and losers. Otherwise they are not over.

 

[KFsdisciple]

1. Helping Ukraine weakens Russia without using American soldiers. Ukraine is an ally, Russia is not.

2. I don’t disagree with knocking him down a peg or pushing Europe to contribute more to the cause. You do it in a private meeting, not in the Oval Office in front of cameras. The clumsy and ham handed way this was carried out was a publicity stunt for Trumps base and a huge PR win for Putin.

1. I agree but at some point we have to shit or get off the pot.

2. Completely agree, this was worse than a blunder because it he didn’t say the quiet part out loud, he didn’t have a poor choice of words. It was completely for the cameras and they all probably toasted some beers after their show.

 

[joelbc1]

Depends on what the goal is…

Is the goal for peace?

As a wartime veteran after three years, the one foot in one foot out strategy of blank checks isn’t working. So, either we need to negotiate for peace or unleash the strongest most capable fighting force in the world.

How much do you trust Putin? He has proved himself to be deceitful and a disruptive in all fronts…If you give Putin land in Ukraine…would you allow Ukraine to seek NATO membership as their security blanket? Maybe WW3 is the guarantee that Europe needs to prevent more Russian encroachment…Putin is not stopping at Ukraine. Europe understands this.

 

[RNHawk]

I like Rubios answer

 

[joelbc1]

1. Helping Ukraine weakens Russia without using American soldiers. Ukraine is an ally, Russia is not.

2. I don’t disagree with knocking him down a peg or pushing Europe to contribute more to the cause. You do it in a private meeting, not in the Oval Office in front of cameras. The clumsy and ham handed way this was carried out was a publicity stunt for Trumps base and a huge PR win for Putin.

I’ll be damned…I agree with Ronald about something!
Especially #2….

 

[KFsdisciple]

How much do you trust Putin? He has proved himself to be deceitful and a disruptive in all fronts…If you give Putin land in Ukraine…would you allow Ukraine to seek NATO membership as their security blanket? Maybe WW3 is the guarantee that Europe needs to prevent more Russian encroachment…Putin is not stopping at Ukraine. Europe understands this.

I assume everything Putin, Trump, Biden, Harris, and the media says are all lies and come from liars.

At some point the world has to say enough. We either have to solve this diplomatically or by force, but we can’t get caught in another 20 year war and have it end like we did in Afghanistan.

 

[Titus Andronicus]

Remember when Bill Clinton was all for spending the "Peace Dividend" that accrued after what was called by historians and want-to-be-journalists the End of the Cold War?

It would appear that there was no end to the Cold War and no Peace Dividend. ... and now we have a war and no money and no will to fight! What a bunch of nonsense!

 

[Scott559]

Depends on what the goal is…

Is the goal for peace?

As a wartime veteran after three years, the one foot in one foot out strategy of blank checks isn’t working. So, either we need to negotiate for peace or unleash the strongest most capable fighting force in the world.

Here is my problem, Russia invaded Ukraine, In the search for a resolution we have heard over and over the concessions Ukraine is expected to make, I have not heard of one concession that is expected of Russia. I have read lifting sanctions against Russia as well as letting Russia keep territories occupied during the war is part of the solution. To me this doesn’t seem like a negotiation made in good faith,It seems like the United States is attempting to bully Ukraine into accepting a deal that gives Russia what they want and in fact rewards them instead of penalizing them. I personally view that as one helluva foreign policy blunder that could have serious consequences down the road.

 

[KFsdisciple]

Here is my problem, Russia invaded Ukraine, In the search for a resolution we have heard over and over the concessions Ukraine is expected to make, I have not heard of one concession that is expected of Russia. I have read lifting sanctions against Russia as well as letting Russia keep territories occupied during the war is part of the solution. To me this doesn’t seem like a negotiation made in good faith,It seems like the United States is attempting to bully Ukraine into accepting a deal that gives Russia what they want and in fact rewards them instead of penalizing them. I personally view that as one helluva foreign policy blunder that could have serious consequences down the road.

I see your point. I would argue that if the goal is to end the aggression then Russia can take a little something for their efforts to go a long with a lot of dead soldiers… they get some land, the fighting stops, and we can tell Putin or whoever is in charge of Russia in the future that this is a one-time offer and any future hostilities will be met with the full force of the US and NATO.

Then we can talk about more money for Ukraine to help build their country and their home back from years of war and death.

 

[Scott559]

I see your point. I would argue that if the goal is to end the aggression then Russia can take a little something for their efforts to go a long with a lot of dead soldiers… they get some land, the fighting stops.

So reward Russia.

 

[KFsdisciple]

So reward Russia.

Or pragmatism wins the day…

I guess it’s just in how you look at it. In the course of human history, we’ve never had one country invade another, where someone wins and someone loses. This is a total first for mankind.

 

[Hawk_82]

Here is my problem, Russia invaded Ukraine, In the search for a resolution we have heard over and over the concessions Ukraine is expected to make, I have not heard of one concession that is expected of Russia. I have read lifting sanctions against Russia as well as letting Russia keep territories occupied during the war is part of the solution. To me this doesn’t seem like a negotiation made in good faith,It seems like the United States is attempting to bully Ukraine into accepting a deal that gives Russia what they want and in fact rewards them instead of penalizing them. I personally view that as one helluva foreign policy blunder that could have serious consequences down the road.

It comes down to leverage. Ukraine has lost ground to Russia even with the support of the west. Russia seems to be doing ok economically despite sanctions. Ukraine is at risk of losing all of Ukraine to Russia if the west stops supporting them. Russia knows this so they don't have to give up a lot of concessions.

Who is going to be hurt worse? Is Russia going to suffer more by continuing a slow war against Ukraine or will the USA suffer more by continuing to pour more resources and money into Ukraine? No one knows the answer to this. The American people are not impressed with going deeper in debt to fund a war in Ukraine and most Americans do not want troops on the ground in Ukraine, so it is possible that the USA will be hurt worse.

Russia has more incentive to fight the war because they have the opportunity to win back Ukraine if they win the ground battle. The obvious downside is going to ww3. The USA does not want to go to ww3 in Ukraine. WW2 shows that Russia in not afraid to lose a lot of people to war if they are fighting a war they believe in.

It is very possible that Russia would rather continue the war than make major concessions to Ukraine and the west. The usa and Ukraine have a lot to lose by continuing the war. With the way the war has gone so far, there is no doubt that Ukraine will have to give up more in negotiations than Russia will. The other option is to keep fighting. Europe seems more inclined to fight, but Trump is not.

What does the USA have to gain by Ukraine winning? If you believe Putin's goal is to continue taking back the rest of the Soviet Union, this will not happen without starting WW3. It would seem like a small concession from Ukraine and the west to give up a little land in Ukraine to prevent WW3.

 

[Scott559]

Or pragmatism wins the day…

I guess it’s just in how you look at it. In the course of human history, we’ve never had one country invade another, where someone wins and someone loses. This is a total first for mankind.

Glad your view wasn’t shared during WW1 and WW2.

 

[RileyHawk]

I see your point. I would argue that if the goal is to end the aggression then Russia can take a little something for their efforts to go a long with a lot of dead soldiers… they get some land, the fighting stops, and we can tell Putin or whoever is in charge of Russia in the future that this is a one-time offer and any future hostilities will be met with the full force of the US and NATO.

Then we can talk about more money for Ukraine to help build their country and their home back from years of war and death.

Except Trump is not offering anything close to those terms.

 

[KFsdisciple]

Glad your view wasn’t shared during WW1 and WW2.

Did we win those wars with blank checks and no balls?

 

[KFsdisciple]

Except Trump is not offering anything close to those terms.

I’m not Trump, so I can only speak for Kfsdisciple.

 

[RileyHawk]

I’m not Trump, so I can only speak for Kfsdisciple.

But you continue to bash Zelenskyy for not ending the war.

What you speak is called hypocrisy.

 

[KFsdisciple]

But you continue to bash Zelenskyy for not ending the war.

What you speak is called hypocrisy.

No what I speak is called pragmatism.

Either lets fight like men, or gtfo but the days of blank checks and thoughts and prayers are over.

 

[ihawk in FWB]

Yes Ukraine is such a loyal ally! I remember all the amazing help they were in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, we could have never defeated the British without the brave efforts of Vladimir Pochenko and the Ukrainian Army, Navy, and special forces.

How dare we treat such a close and long time ally like that?

Ukrainian involvement in the Iraq War - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Thanks for reminding us about the Ukraine help in Iraq.

 

[KFsdisciple]

Ukrainian involvement in the Iraq War - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Thanks for reminding us about the Ukraine help in Iraq.

Gosh, I must have just missed them when I was kicking down doors.

 

[KFsdisciple]

Ukrainian involvement in the Iraq War - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Thanks for reminding us about the Ukraine help in Iraq.

Ukraine's involvement in the Iraq War was strongly opposed by the Ukrainian population. It was seen both within and outside Ukraine primarily as an effort by President Leonid Kuchma to distract attention from the Cassette Scandal, which opponents claimed implicated him in the murder of journalist Georgiy Gongadze and the sale of the Kolchuga system to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Public opposition to war increased following Ukrainian troops hasty retreat and loss of Kut city in 2004 [uk] to insurgents, which infuriated coalition leaders and led to a reassessment of Ukrainian activities in Iraq. Following the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election, Kuchma's successor, Viktor Yushchenko, announced the departure of most of Ukraine's contingent, and the final peacekeepers left three years later.

From your link… one of our closest allies alright.

 

[ihawk in FWB]

Gosh, I must have just missed them when I was kicking down doors.

Sorry you missed them. It sounds like you were busy.

 

[KFsdisciple]

Sorry you missed them. It sounds like you were busy.

I remember partnering with several nations, Ukraine wasn’t one of them, but maybe they were just involved with other teams and missions.

From your link it looks like I was wrong about them and their participation in Iraq.

 

[Scott559]

It comes down to leverage. Ukraine has lost ground to Russia even with the support of the west. Russia seems to be doing ok economically despite sanctions. Ukraine is at risk of losing all of Ukraine to Russia if the west stops supporting them. Russia knows this so they don't have to give up a lot of concessions.

Who is going to be hurt worse? Is Russia going to suffer more by continuing a slow war against Ukraine or will the USA suffer more by continuing to pour more resources and money into Ukraine? No one knows the answer to this. The American people are not impressed with going deeper in debt to fund a war in Ukraine and most Americans do not want troops on the ground in Ukraine, so it is possible that the USA will be hurt worse.

Russia has more incentive to fight the war because they have the opportunity to win back Ukraine if they win the ground battle. The obvious downside is going to ww3. The USA does not want to go to ww3 in Ukraine. WW2 shows that Russia in not afraid to lose a lot of people to war if they are fighting a war they believe in.

It is very possible that Russia would rather continue the war than make major concessions to Ukraine and the west. The usa and Ukraine have a lot to lose by continuing the war. With the way the war has gone so far, there is no doubt that Ukraine will have to give up more in negotiations than Russia will. The other option is to keep fighting. Europe seems more inclined to fight, but Trump is not.

What does the USA have to gain by Ukraine winning? If you believe Putin's goal is to continue taking back the rest of the Soviet Union, this will not happen without starting WW3. It would seem like a small concession from Ukraine and the west to give up a little land in Ukraine to prevent WW3.

I realize that America is moving towards isolationism, It’s not my choice but I am just one voice. IMO letting Russia win fully on their terms and the caveat of the U.S. lifting sanctions means Ukraine is essentially being gifted to Russia, Russia rebuilds their military and finishes the job. Perhaps Europe can keep it from happening but as things currently sit I have no doubt America will have a who gives a shit attitude.

What I truly fear is Putin invading a NATO country and again as things currently sit the U.S. taking a who gives a shit attitude. Trumps disdain for NATO seems pretty obvious. I just feel almost every move the United States is making just empowers Putin and I don’t see any deterrents being put forward. I really hope I am way of base here.

 

[KFsdisciple]

I realize that America is moving towards isolationism, It’s not my choice but I am just one voice. IMO letting Russia win fully on their terms and the caveat of the U.S. lifting sanctions means Ukraine is essentially being gifted to Russia, Russia rebuilds their military and finishes the job. Perhaps Europe can keep it from happening but as things currently sit I have no doubt America will have a who gives a shit attitude.

What I truly fear is Putin invading a NATO country and again as things currently sit the U.S. taking a who gives a shit attitude. Trumps disdain for NATO seems pretty obvious. I just feel almost every move the United States is making just empowers Putin and I don’t see any deterrents being put forward. I really hope I am way of base here.

Fair and reasonable take.

Right now it feels like we are offering a carrot but no stick. Outside of deaths, neither side has any motivation to bring this thing to an end. Russia can outlast and outman Ukraine, and Ukraine doesn’t mind the free money to keep this thing going either.

 

[Scott559]

Fair and reasonable take.

Right now it feels like we are offering a carrot but no stick. Outside of deaths, neither side has any motivation to bring this thing to an end. Russia can outlast and outman Ukraine, and Ukraine doesn’t mind the free money to keep this thing going either.

Just don’t lose sight of the fact that Ukraine was invaded and they are fighting for their Country’s freedom.

 

[RonaldMexico]

I like Rubios answer

View embedded media

That was “trying to be a peacemaker”?

SMH.

 

[mustang_hawk]

So reward Russia.

If that's the way this works then Germany should have been entitled to a little bit of France, the Low Countries, Denmark, Norway, Poland, Greece, the Balkans, North Africa and Russia at the end of WW2. The aggressor being entitled to anything because they went to the trouble of invading and lost soldiers is a huge pile of crap. Russia should pay reparations to rebuild Ukraine.

 

[KFsdisciple]

Just don’t lose sight of the fact that Ukraine was invaded and they are fighting for their Country’s freedom.

Not the first time in history this has happened, and it’s never been won by money and well wishes

 

[RonaldMexico]

Fair and reasonable take.

Right now it feels like we are offering a carrot but no stick. Outside of deaths, neither side has any motivation to bring this thing to an end. Russia can outlast and outman Ukraine, and Ukraine doesn’t mind the free money to keep this thing going either.

The country that needs the stick is the one that has soldiers inside of the borders of another country. Peace could immediately be achieved by withdrawing Russian troops from the country they invaded.

If there were Chinese troops in California, would it be reasonable to say that the US needs to agree to a cease fire? How do you think our new found isolationism will work out for Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan. Like it or not, the US is the one thing standing in the way of regional Russian and Chinese military aggression.

Again, I agree that other countries need to contribute more, but it needs to be done correctly but to a point. Do we want to now have another 30-40 countries developing nuclear capabilities because the US has essentially told them that if Russia or China attacks, they simply “don’t have the cards” to defend themselves?

 

[ihawk in FWB]

I remember partnering with several nations, Ukraine wasn’t one of them, but maybe they were just involved with other teams and missions.

From your link it looks like I was wrong about them and their participation in Iraq.

I saw them coming in and out of BIAP. They looked like the had some kind of combat mission, or at least equipped to have one.