"Zelenskyy has taken to X, formerly Twitter, to thank leaders who have posted their support on the social media platform.
They include the leaders of Germany, Spain, France, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Moldova, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Czech Republic, Finland, Portugal, Croatia, the European Parliament, the European Commission and European Council."
Can't help feeling there is something missing there.
Thank you America, thank you for your support, thank you for this visit. Thank you @POTUS, Congress, and the American people. Ukraine needs just and lasting peace, and we are working exactly for that. https://x.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1895555315716014324
Interesting summary here. This seems to be a take across left and right. Konstantin Kisin to Aaron Bastani have similar.
I only saw a little bit after reading a few comments here as I was watching an old episode of New Tricks. A far more worthwhile endeavour, I may try to catch it later.
Zelenskyy went there and was going to get a deal but didn’t.
‘I watched the entire press conference with Zelensky. There was 40 minutes of discussion up to the argument. Most people saw at most the last ten minutes. The whole video gives the proper context.
When I first watched the argument without the proper context, I thought it was possible that Trump and Vance ambushed Zelensky or were even trying to humiliate him. That's not what happened.
You had 40 minutes of calm conversation. Vance made a point that didn't attack Zelensky and wasn't even addressed to him, and Zelensky clearly started the argument.
In the first 40 minutes, Zelensky kept trying to go beyond what was negotiated in the deal. When Trump was asked a question, it was always "we'll see." Zelensky made blanket assertions that there would be no negotiating with Putin, and that Russia would pay for the war. When Trump said that it was a tragedy that people on both sides were dying, Zelensky interjected that the Russians were the invaders.
For his part, Trump made clear that the US would continue delivering military aid. All Zelensky had to do was remain calm for a few more minutes and they would've signed a deal.
The argument started when Trump pointed out that it would be hard to make a deal if you talk about Putin the way Zelensky does. Vance interjects to make the reasonable point that Biden called Putin names and that didn't get us anywhere.
The Zelensky/Trump dynamic was calm and stable. It was when Vance spoke that Zelensky started to interrogate him. Throughout the press conference to that point, everyone was making their arguments directly to the audience. Zelensky decided to challenge Vance and ask him hostile questions. He went back to his point that Putin never sticks to ceasefires, once again implying that negotiations are pointless. Why on earth would you do this? Then came the fight we all saw.
Zelensky was minutes away from being home free, and he would have had the deal and new commitments from the Trump administration. The point Vance made was directed against Biden and the media, taking them to task for speaking in moralistic terms. This offended Zelensky, and that began the argument.
I've been a fan of Zelensky up to this point, but this showed so much incompetence, if not emotional instability, that I don't see how he recovers from this. The relationship with the administration is broken. Ukraine should probably go with new leadership at this point.’
Fuckin' hell Taz. I hope you have posted this to demonstrate what a fuckin' melon Bastani is.
Zelensky was gaslit by the Trump administration. He was ambushed and then we have useful idiots equalising the blame or putting it firmly on Zelensky 's shoulders. One should expect that from a twunt like Bastani, but BBC USA Editor Sarah Smith (daughter of perhaps the greatest modern Labour Prime Minister that never was) should be sacked for her myopic analysis that Zelensky was the aggressor.
Nah, that was Roy Jenkins or possibly Denis Healy. John Smith was an affable chap and quite bright but not in their class.
The fiasco yesterday shows just how badly Starmer's visit could have gone. Not getting riled by Vance and employing the King's letter, Churchill's bust to full nauseating effect was indeed a triumph.
Hindsight is everything. Starmer's team now need to adjust and make Sunday a success too.
If he’s not very careful the state visit will become an albatross round Starmer’s neck, it may have already. The Trump despisers (eg me) thought it was an obscenity to begin with, the royalists will think it besmirches the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.
I've been a fan of Zelensky up to this point, but this showed so much incompetence, if not emotional instability, that I don't see how he recovers from this. The relationship with the administration is broken. Ukraine should probably go with new leadership at this point.’
This analysis neglects some domestic Ukrainian politics. Z has made his bed with the Azovs, Right Sektor and other assorted maniacs. If he didn't push back to the absolute maximum and slag Russia on the biggest stage he's ever worked before signing any deal then there is a decent chance he'd be killed when he got back. As was possible with psychos like DJT and JDV, he pushed a bit too hard.
Still, he's part of the problem now, not part of the solution and might have to be coup'ed out of the way for the SMO to end.
That's an incredibly naive view of Russian intentions.
Putin's invasion will end either when his army is smashed or when he has destroyed Ukrainian independence. Zelensky being President or not makes no difference.
The way for the war to end is the same way as it's always been - Russia respects the international borders it promised many times to accept and forgets about 19th century fantasies of empire.
Watching the entire hour of the press conference, it's abundantly clear that the inexperiencedly arrogant Vance destroyed the entire deal.
It can't be anything other than deliberate sabotage IMO. No-one treats other leaders that way, not even if they are from a hostile state, let alone a nominal ally.
You make a good point. This was billed to be a celebration, a ceremonial signing of a deal. That’s not what happened. Either Vance was following orders or is in deep shit today.
You can see from the full video that he's an inexperienced young politician drunk on his status. Zelensky also riled him, and so the fuse was lit.
Interesting summary here. This seems to be a take across left and right. Konstantin Kisin to Aaron Bastani have similar.
I only saw a little bit after reading a few comments here as I was watching an old episode of New Tricks. A far more worthwhile endeavour, I may try to catch it later.
Zelenskyy went there and was going to get a deal but didn’t.
‘I watched the entire press conference with Zelensky. There was 40 minutes of discussion up to the argument. Most people saw at most the last ten minutes. The whole video gives the proper context.
When I first watched the argument without the proper context, I thought it was possible that Trump and Vance ambushed Zelensky or were even trying to humiliate him. That's not what happened.
You had 40 minutes of calm conversation. Vance made a point that didn't attack Zelensky and wasn't even addressed to him, and Zelensky clearly started the argument.
In the first 40 minutes, Zelensky kept trying to go beyond what was negotiated in the deal. When Trump was asked a question, it was always "we'll see." Zelensky made blanket assertions that there would be no negotiating with Putin, and that Russia would pay for the war. When Trump said that it was a tragedy that people on both sides were dying, Zelensky interjected that the Russians were the invaders.
For his part, Trump made clear that the US would continue delivering military aid. All Zelensky had to do was remain calm for a few more minutes and they would've signed a deal.
The argument started when Trump pointed out that it would be hard to make a deal if you talk about Putin the way Zelensky does. Vance interjects to make the reasonable point that Biden called Putin names and that didn't get us anywhere.
The Zelensky/Trump dynamic was calm and stable. It was when Vance spoke that Zelensky started to interrogate him. Throughout the press conference to that point, everyone was making their arguments directly to the audience. Zelensky decided to challenge Vance and ask him hostile questions. He went back to his point that Putin never sticks to ceasefires, once again implying that negotiations are pointless. Why on earth would you do this? Then came the fight we all saw.
Zelensky was minutes away from being home free, and he would have had the deal and new commitments from the Trump administration. The point Vance made was directed against Biden and the media, taking them to task for speaking in moralistic terms. This offended Zelensky, and that began the argument.
I've been a fan of Zelensky up to this point, but this showed so much incompetence, if not emotional instability, that I don't see how he recovers from this. The relationship with the administration is broken. Ukraine should probably go with new leadership at this point.’
"Zelenskyy has taken to X, formerly Twitter, to thank leaders who have posted their support on the social media platform.
They include the leaders of Germany, Spain, France, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Moldova, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Czech Republic, Finland, Portugal, Croatia, the European Parliament, the European Commission and European Council."
Can't help feeling there is something missing there.
Thank you America, thank you for your support, thank you for this visit. Thank you @POTUS, Congress, and the American people. Ukraine needs just and lasting peace, and we are working exactly for that. https://x.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1895555315716014324
Numpty on Sky News last night took this at face value, completely missing the piss take.
The fiasco yesterday shows just how badly Starmer's visit could have gone. Not getting riled by Vance and employing the King's letter, Churchill's bust to full nauseating effect was indeed a triumph.
Hindsight is everything. Starmer's team now need to adjust and make Sunday a success too.
Starmer's error was going in the first place. I suppose he thought it worth a try, triggering Trump haters like myself. Starmer shouldn't have treated the evil bastard with any reverence or respect but he did. Mistake. Nonetheless Starmer's motive were positive and fraught with danger, and from that point of view he equipped himself well. Only Trump's insanity ( which Starmer and the FO should have registered) turned a perceived success on its head.
Now most of us on here have castigated Starmer for his folly, but as I just said the motives were admirable. Few of the Starmer detractors have questioned the motives of long time Trump fanbois and gurlz like Farage, Johnson, Truss, Mogg, Jenrick ( pick the name of your least favourite right wing nasty bastard).
I've been a fan of Zelensky up to this point, but this showed so much incompetence, if not emotional instability, that I don't see how he recovers from this. The relationship with the administration is broken. Ukraine should probably go with new leadership at this point.’
This analysis neglects some domestic Ukrainian politics. Z has made his bed with the Azovs, Right Sektor and other assorted maniacs. If he didn't push back to the absolute maximum and slag Russia on the biggest stage he's ever worked before signing any deal then there is a decent chance he'd be killed when he got back. As was possible with psychos like DJT and JDV, he pushed a bit too hard.
Still, he's part of the problem now, not part of the solution and might have to be coup'ed out of the way for the SMO to end.
That's an incredibly naive view of Russian intentions.
Putin's invasion will end either when his army is smashed or when he has destroyed Ukrainian independence. Zelensky being President or not makes no difference.
The way for the war to end is the same way as it's always been - Russia respects the international borders it promised many times to accept and forgets about 19th century fantasies of empire.
Given that Trump's animosity towards Zelenskyy seems to be driven at least partly by his hatred of all things Biden, Zelenskyy quitting or at least saying "Biden was the worst, if only Trump hadn't had his election win in 2020 stolen, Putin would never have invaded" is probably the only way some US support for Ukraine might be saved.
I would rather he lowers the temperature than escalates for dramatic effect. We need to buy time.
We’re still all assuming Trump and his cabal are rational actors. They’re not. They need to get hardball treatment, as Canada has shown.
It took us 2 decades to realise that about Putin. Are we really going to make the same mistake again?
Sure, but there no sense in escalating now. The damage is done. We need to buy time.
No no no. Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions. Otherwise it’s appeasement.
“Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions”
Okay. What measures are you suggesting?
Some want a dramatic Hollywood moment. Unfortunately the credits will not roll and we will all have to deal with the consequences.
Cool heads, accept the old world is gone and we are not yet ready for the new world, buy time.
Expel the USA from the Five Eyes. Tulsi Gabbard will betray secret information to Russia.
I agree. Unfortunately I spent yesterday lunchtime with my beighbour who spent a decade or more in the RAF doing all manner of intelligence and C&C posts. He said that whilst it is a nice idea and may even become necessary, the US own much of the actual framework hardware for Five Eyes and the rest of the countries are not currently in a position to replicate that.
If only these various European countries could find some sort of formal way to start working together?
All the evidence is that they cannot. Hungary! Ireland (1% on defence), Spain, etcetcetc Oh we have fine words, but that's where it ends.
It only needs co-operation between the EU's major powers to put together sufficient armed forces to defend the continent. The Spanish can provide the refreshments and the Irish the entertainment.
Let's all turn off the net today. Come back tomorrow when the sane leaders stand beside Ukraine.
That's a bit like closing your eyes in the hope that the boogie man will go away, and when you open them again the monstrous orange f***er is still there.
I've been a fan of Zelensky up to this point, but this showed so much incompetence, if not emotional instability, that I don't see how he recovers from this. The relationship with the administration is broken. Ukraine should probably go with new leadership at this point.’
This analysis neglects some domestic Ukrainian politics. Z has made his bed with the Azovs, Right Sektor and other assorted maniacs. If he didn't push back to the absolute maximum and slag Russia on the biggest stage he's ever worked before signing any deal then there is a decent chance he'd be killed when he got back. As was possible with psychos like DJT and JDV, he pushed a bit too hard.
Still, he's part of the problem now, not part of the solution and might have to be coup'ed out of the way for the SMO to end.
That's an incredibly naive view of Russian intentions.
Putin's invasion will end either when his army is smashed or when he has destroyed Ukrainian independence. Zelensky being President or not makes no difference.
The way for the war to end is the same way as it's always been - Russia respects the international borders it promised many times to accept and forgets about 19th century fantasies of empire.
Given that Trump's animosity towards Zelenskyy seems to be driven at least partly by his hatred of all things Biden, Zelenskyy quitting or at least "saying Biden was the worst, if only Trump hadn't had his election win in 2020 stolen, Putin would never have invaded" is probably the only way some US support for Ukraine might be saved.
Anyone have any news on how the WH clusterfuck is going down stateside? I imagine the MAGAs will be tutting over Zelensky’s disrespectful dress sense while caressing their AR-15s, but what about the centrist dads?
It’s not obvious to me how much this is was a premeditated shakedown, and how much just Trump doing his daily tv show with Vance (a seeming legitimate Ukrainophobe) shit-stirring from his sofa.
There seems to be a real MAGA meme that somehow Zelensky has hoodwinked the US into wasting untold treasure on the war. I’ve no idea how widely such an idea has taken hold of the American right, but Occam’s Razor suggests it emanates directly from Russian psy-ops.
I don’t blame Starmer for being at a loss. On one level, today’s drama is simply a bust-up in an office. It’s certainly too early to be cancelling state visits or Love Actually moments, as gratifying as that might feel.
Zelensky should point out that they've destroyed 10k Russian tanks.
Russian tanks which were built to kill Americans and now never will.
This can't be repeated too often. Ukraine is destroying the last remnants of America's historic enemy and it hasn't cost a single American life. What more can they ask for?
After last night's events the logic seems fairly clear.
Either we let Trump and Putin decide Europe's future between them, or we give Ukraine the backing it needs to defeat the invasion.
Neither option is going to be pleasant, but only one offers any long term security.
So if they carve it up for themselves, Putin gets mainland Continental Europe. Trump gets Great Britain and Ireland, Iceland and Greenland. The art of the deal!
It’s not obvious to me how much this is was a premeditated shakedown, and how much just Trump doing his daily tv show with Vance (a seeming legitimate Ukrainophobe) shit-stirring from his sofa.
There seems to be a real MAGA meme that somehow Zelensky has hoodwinked the US into wasting untold treasure on the war. I’ve no idea how widely such an idea has taken hold of the American right, but Occam’s Razor suggests it emanates directly from Russian psy-ops.
I don’t blame Starmer for being at a loss. On one level, today’s drama is simply a bust-up in an office. It’s certainly too early to be cancelling state visits or Love Actually moments, as gratifying as that might feel.
Zelensky should point out that they've destroyed 10k Russian tanks.
Russian tanks which were built to kill Americans and now never will.
This can't be repeated too often. Ukraine is destroying the last remnants of America's historic enemy and it hasn't cost a single American life. What more can they ask for?
$500bn of minerals in surety money, I believe
Nice minerals you got there, shame if anything happened to them....what you need is protection...
It’s not obvious to me how much this is was a premeditated shakedown, and how much just Trump doing his daily tv show with Vance (a seeming legitimate Ukrainophobe) shit-stirring from his sofa.
There seems to be a real MAGA meme that somehow Zelensky has hoodwinked the US into wasting untold treasure on the war. I’ve no idea how widely such an idea has taken hold of the American right, but Occam’s Razor suggests it emanates directly from Russian psy-ops.
I don’t blame Starmer for being at a loss. On one level, today’s drama is simply a bust-up in an office. It’s certainly too early to be cancelling state visits or Love Actually moments, as gratifying as that might feel.
Zelensky should point out that they've destroyed 10k Russian tanks.
Russian tanks which were built to kill Americans and now never will.
They were only "built to kill Americans" to the extent that Europe expected Americans to be the ones to die defending it, which is exactly the problem.
The USSR always saw Europe as a target/victim. America was the enemy
I've been a fan of Zelensky up to this point, but this showed so much incompetence, if not emotional instability, that I don't see how he recovers from this. The relationship with the administration is broken. Ukraine should probably go with new leadership at this point.’
This analysis neglects some domestic Ukrainian politics. Z has made his bed with the Azovs, Right Sektor and other assorted maniacs. If he didn't push back to the absolute maximum and slag Russia on the biggest stage he's ever worked before signing any deal then there is a decent chance he'd be killed when he got back. As was possible with psychos like DJT and JDV, he pushed a bit too hard.
Still, he's part of the problem now, not part of the solution and might have to be coup'ed out of the way for the SMO to end.
That's an incredibly naive view of Russian intentions.
Putin's invasion will end either when his army is smashed or when he has destroyed Ukrainian independence. Zelensky being President or not makes no difference.
The way for the war to end is the same way as it's always been - Russia respects the international borders it promised many times to accept and forgets about 19th century fantasies of empire.
Given that Trump's animosity towards Zelenskyy seems to be driven at least partly by his hatred of all things Biden, Zelenskyy quitting or at least "saying Biden was the worst, if only Trump hadn't had his election win in 2020 stolen, Putin would never have invaded" is probably the only way some US support for Ukraine might be saved.
Anyone have any news on how the WH clusterfuck is going down stateside? I imagine the MAGAs will be tutting over Zelensky’s disrespectful dress sense while caressing their AR-15s, but what about the centrist dads?
Like all things in America these days it seems incredibly polarised with all the Democrats calling Trump's behaviour outrageous and all of the GOP praising him for his restraint.
This polarisation has made the US an unreliable and somewhat eccentric partner. The post war consensus on foreign affairs has completely collapsed and we will have a country that it is very difficult to have long term arrangements with until they get it back. This is bigger than a DJT problem and we need to think hard about what to do about it.
I've been a fan of Zelensky up to this point, but this showed so much incompetence, if not emotional instability, that I don't see how he recovers from this. The relationship with the administration is broken. Ukraine should probably go with new leadership at this point.’
This analysis neglects some domestic Ukrainian politics. Z has made his bed with the Azovs, Right Sektor and other assorted maniacs. If he didn't push back to the absolute maximum and slag Russia on the biggest stage he's ever worked before signing any deal then there is a decent chance he'd be killed when he got back. As was possible with psychos like DJT and JDV, he pushed a bit too hard.
Still, he's part of the problem now, not part of the solution and might have to be coup'ed out of the way for the SMO to end.
That's an incredibly naive view of Russian intentions.
Putin's invasion will end either when his army is smashed or when he has destroyed Ukrainian independence. Zelensky being President or not makes no difference.
The way for the war to end is the same way as it's always been - Russia respects the international borders it promised many times to accept and forgets about 19th century fantasies of empire.
Given that Trump's animosity towards Zelenskyy seems to be driven at least partly by his hatred of all things Biden, Zelenskyy quitting or at least "saying Biden was the worst, if only Trump hadn't had his election win in 2020 stolen, Putin would never have invaded" is probably the only way some US support for Ukraine might be saved.
Anyone have any news on how the WH clusterfuck is going down stateside? I imagine the MAGAs will be tutting over Zelensky’s disrespectful dress sense while caressing their AR-15s, but what about the centrist dads?
Like all things in America these days it seems incredibly polarised with all the Democrats calling Trump's behaviour outrageous and all of the GOP praising him for his restraint.
This polarisation has made the US an unreliable and somewhat eccentric partner. The post war consensus on foreign affairs has completely collapsed and we will have a country that it is very difficult to have long term arrangements with until they get it back. This is bigger than a DJT problem and we need to think hard about what to do about it.
Eccentric's too nice a word. Erratic is more accurate.
The PB armchair Generals need to polish their imaginary medals.
The prospect of my children dying in Eastern European trenches because of that obscene orange fucker fills me with dread.
Putin can end the war IMMEDIATELY by getting the fuck out of occupied Ukraine.
That's less likely this morning than it was yesterday .morning. Well done on the 11 likes though.
But it could be more likely tomorrow.
Putin is failing, his economy is failing, he can't defeat Ukraine when Ukraine is supported by the West. But he counted upon Trump winning and pulling the rug out from under Zelensky.
However what he didn't count on was that Europe might stand firm even without the USA. If that happens, then Europe combined is far, far, far stronger than Russia is.
Which doesn't mean a united Europe, it means a coalition of willing allies in Europe like Poland, Germany, the UK and more continuing to supply Ukraine with whatever arms she needs to see of the invasion.
What really seemed to upset Vance and Trump was Zelensky campaigning in Pennsylvania for the Democrats and that wasn't, in fairness, the smartest move. Thank goodness none of our parties were stupid enough to send supporters to campaign for Harris.
I agree this was definitely a trigger. In that context it's funny that Starmer got away with Labour's actions. Once again it shows that this was a hatchet job on Z.
The PB armchair Generals need to polish their imaginary medals.
The prospect of my children dying in Eastern European trenches because of that obscene orange fucker fills me with dread.
Putin can end the war IMMEDIATELY by getting the fuck out of occupied Ukraine.
That's less likely this morning than it was yesterday .morning. Well done on the 11 likes though.
But it could be more likely tomorrow.
Putin is failing, his economy is failing, he can't defeat Ukraine when Ukraine is supported by the West. But he counted upon Trump winning and pulling the rug out from under Zelensky.
However what he didn't count on was that Europe might stand firm even without the USA. If that happens, then Europe combined is far, far, far stronger than Russia is.
Which doesn't mean a united Europe, it means a coalition of willing allies in Europe like Poland, Germany, the UK and more continuing to supply Ukraine with whatever arms she needs to see of the invasion.
Of FFS Bart, Putin WAS almost dead in the water until the orange c*** handed him a lifeline.
I woke up this morning and read PB's entire hysterical thread, and presumed the press conference had ended with J D Vance shoving Nebraska's largest steel pineapple up Zelenskyyyy's butt, as Trump applauded with the specially-invited ghost of Stalin chortling alongside
What rot
I've just watched the whole thing
Zelensky is a bold brave bastard - or afraid of being offed - or, quite probably, both - but either way Zelensky misreads the room. Yes, he is provoked by stupid questions - the daft query about his suit is absurdly egregious - but Z gets angry - feeling he's not being taken seriously about Putin - and he starts lecturing Vance. J D Vance does NOT start the mano a mano stuff - Zelensky does. Zelensky starts the bickering. Then Zelensky continues his sharp, hectoring tone, and Trump loses his temper like a Mafia don being dissed by an unmade man, and then it all falls apart and all the ill-feeling between them (Hunter Biden, Z supporting the Dems, the sassytempt?) spills out into public viewing
The PB armchair Generals need to polish their imaginary medals.
The prospect of my children dying in Eastern European trenches because of that obscene orange fucker fills me with dread.
Putin can end the war IMMEDIATELY by getting the fuck out of occupied Ukraine.
That's less likely this morning than it was yesterday .morning. Well done on the 11 likes though.
But it could be more likely tomorrow.
Putin is failing, his economy is failing, he can't defeat Ukraine when Ukraine is supported by the West. But he counted upon Trump winning and pulling the rug out from under Zelensky.
However what he didn't count on was that Europe might stand firm even without the USA. If that happens, then Europe combined is far, far, far stronger than Russia is.
Which doesn't mean a united Europe, it means a coalition of willing allies in Europe like Poland, Germany, the UK and more continuing to supply Ukraine with whatever arms she needs to see of the invasion.
Of FFS Bart, Putin WAS almost dead in the water until the orange c*** handed him a lifeline.
Indeed, that's the point, but that doesn't mean we all need to just throw our hands up and say "oh what a shame".
It means we need to redouble our efforts to see Putin defeated.
The fiasco yesterday shows just how badly Starmer's visit could have gone. Not getting riled by Vance and employing the King's letter, Churchill's bust to full nauseating effect was indeed a triumph.
Hindsight is everything. Starmer's team now need to adjust and make Sunday a success too.
If he’s not very careful the state visit will become an albatross round Starmer’s neck, it may have already. The Trump despisers (eg me) thought it was an obscenity to begin with, the royalists will think it besmirches the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.
Completely disagree. It is leverage, which we badly need right now. Mandelson's odiousness will serve him brilliantly in hinting, subtly enough that Trump is constantly discombobulated, that this or that action by Trump may threaten Charles' ability to schedule the visit at an appropriate time, with appropriate pomp. Vance can't be in the room every time to manipulate Trump. We need to play Trump like a fiddle, and the state visit will help us do that.
What really seemed to upset Vance and Trump was Zelensky campaigning in Pennsylvania for the Democrats and that wasn't, in fairness, the smartest move. Thank goodness none of our parties were stupid enough to send supporters to campaign for Harris.
I agree this was definitely a trigger. In that context it's funny that Starmer got away with Labour's actions. Once again it shows that this was a hatchet job on Z.
Starmer didn't get away with anything Trump and Vance are seriously harsh about Starmer's restricting free speech and the Apple backdoor nonsense
Well, I slept like absolute shit. Glad I recorded all the stuff I needed yesterday (just barely ran out of time almost got podcast released). Will be up sometime this morning probably.
One of the few upsides of Trump's inconsistency and volatility is that Zelensky isn't wrong about the spat being bad, but perhaps recoverable.
It's hard to know exactly what an appropriate response to this is in relation to the USA, but I do know one thing: the meeting of European leaders this Sunday could not have had a clearer impetus.
If they collectively bottle taking decisive measures to allow Europe to stand alone in defence within 3-5 years, including defending Ukraine to the extent that we are capable of doing so, starting Monday, every single one of them deserves to be thrown out of office.
If things weren't clear before, they surely are now.
Unfortunately Germany won't be in a position to promise increased defence spending because that utter shit Merz refused to talk about reforming the debt brake on any of the dozen times the outgoing government asked him to consider it over the last year or more.
Whether something can be done before the new parliament (that has a 1 third blocking minority AfD plus die Linke) convenes isn't certain. Today die Linke threatened to go to the constitutional court if an attempt is made using the old parliament.
But you know there are historical reasons Germany is reticent to get involved in war in Ukraine. Why don’t you just be honest and explain to us that you understand that, rather than hide behind those reasons in your criticism of Merz?
Huh? Should I bother answering this? I'll just say your reply to me doesn't address anything I wrote in any way whatsoever and leave it at that.
UK journalism often refers to this German reticence - should we ignore it when UK journalists do this? Or is it a real thing, the sound of German language in Ukraine winds up Pro Russia Ukrainians or something? It’s not all about 2nd WW? is it first WW or prior to that?
What's it got to do with the German constitutional debt brake?
You seem reticent to explain there is or isn’t this reticence thing to us - why?
I was talking about the debt brake - which is why I ask you what your comments have to do with the debt brake?
But on the issue of sensitivity in Germany around German military involvement in Ukraine (and elsewhere) for historical reasons, I'm sure you can figure it out. I'll give you one hint - @JosiasJessop is an idiot.
Okay, so you disagree.
So let me ask a question: how long should Germany use their sins of eighty years ago as an excuse for inaction? How long will those 'sensitivities' last? A hundred years? Two hundred years? The Baltics? Poland? The Rhine?
You literally couldn't see any difference between things that happened 80 years ago and things that happened 200 years ago!
Of course i can see the difference.
So please answer my question: how long should Germany use their sins of eighty years ago as an excuse for inaction?
Evidently, in your mind it is greater than eighty years and less than two hundred. I'm just interested in your view on this, and your reasoning.
But I also think that the 'sensitivities' stuff is just rubbish after eighty years. An excuse for inaction, playing into Russia's hands.
Personally, I think the West should have either from the start given Ukraine whatever support it needed to defeat Russia, or not bothered. I blame Biden for his caution and Germany has consistently followed the American lead, at least up until Trump came back.
If you look at the last decades Germany has been reluctant to get involved in any foreign military adventures. The first combat mission was Kosovo 1999, and since that Afghanistan - though that was intended as a rebuilding mission. The US (and Britain and France for that matter) have been far more gung-ho in terms of foreign military adventures, and are nuclear powers as well. Expecting Germany to lead any military operations is a bit unrealistic.
If it turns out that Biden was all for NATO planes bombing the shit out of the Russian columns when they first advanced in 2022, and was only dissuaded by the German government I'll revise my opinion.
But also you seem to have some weird obsession with Germany, when other European allies, especially France and Italy, have provided a fraction of the support. Indeed you weirdly praise France in the same breath as condemning Germany.
I was going to give your comment a 'like', then read your final paragraph.
There are different sorts of 'support': humanitarian, military, financial, pledged, delivered, etc, etc.
France (and the UK...) have given missiles that allow Ukraine to strike very long distances. These are exceptionally useful to Ukraine. Germany refuses to give their very useful missiles. Surely you can see that's a discredit to Germany? Ditto the disgraceful delay in allowing Leopards to go over.
Germany's done many good things for Ukraine. But don't pretend they've been perfect. (*)
Also, as we are seeing in the USA, talk matters. Johnson, Sunak, and now Starmer have all been very clear in their support for Ukraine. As has Macron in France. Germany under Scholz seemed rather more equivocal. And yes, they followed the USA like a little poodle. Perhaps some leadership, and saying "These are our values, and Russia is against them!" might have been better than: "We'll just follow the USA."
But you still have not answered my question...
(*) Neither have we; but we shamefully had less to give.
But your question was a different one to the one asked. Do the events of 80 years ago still affect German foreign policy? My answer is yes. Should they? Well it depends.
(Snip)
My question was quite clear, and *not* the answer you give above.
You name-checked me and called me an 'idiot'. Fair enough. But you cannot even answer (as far as I can see) the simple question I posed. Here it is again: how long should Germany use their sins of eighty years ago as an excuse for inaction? How long will those 'sensitivities' last?
Evidently eighty years. But not two hundred. What is the value, and why?
But for me to answer your question you need to give me a specific example of "Germany using the sins of 80 years ago as an excuse for inaction" then I can say if I think it was right or wrong.
Clearly German history from the 30s and 40s does affect current German foreign policy - look at the unqualified support Germany gives Israel. In this case I think it's wrong.
And I'm not going to defend Scholz because he's been rubbish. But at the end of the day the only thing he'll be remembered for is his Zeitenwende speech on the 27th February 2022,which signalled a complete turnaround in German foreign policy.
What really seemed to upset Vance and Trump was Zelensky campaigning in Pennsylvania for the Democrats and that wasn't, in fairness, the smartest move. Thank goodness none of our parties were stupid enough to send supporters to campaign for Harris.
I agree this was definitely a trigger. In that context it's funny that Starmer got away with Labour's actions. Once again it shows that this was a hatchet job on Z.
Starmer didn't get away with anything Trump and Vance are seriously harsh about Starmer's restricting free speech and the Apple backdoor nonsense
Watch the WHOLE press conference
I mean specifically the Labour representatives going to campaign for Harris. I didn't see Trump or Vance use that against Starmer; did I miss it?
I woke up this morning and read PB's entire hysterical thread, and presumed the press conference had ended with J D Vance shoving Nebraska's largest steel pineapple up Zelenskyyyy's butt, as Trump applauded with the specially-invited ghost of Stalin chortling alongside
What rot
I've just watched the whole thing
Zelensky is a bold brave bastard - or afraid of being offed - or, quite probably, both - but either way Zelensky misreads the room. Yes, he is provoked by stupid questions - the daft query about his suit is absurdly egregious - but Z gets angry - feeling he's not being taken seriously about Putin - and he starts lecturing Vance. J D Vance does NOT start the mano a mano stuff - Zelensky does. Zelensky starts the bickering. Then Zelensky continues his sharp, hectoring tone, and Trump loses his temper like a Mafia don being dissed by an unmade man, and then it all falls apart and all the ill-feeling between them (Hunter Biden, Z supporting the Dems, the sassytempt?) spills out into public viewing
I woke up this morning and read PB's entire hysterical thread, and presumed the press conference had ended with J D Vance shoving Nebraska's largest steel pineapple up Zelenskyyyy's butt, as Trump applauded with the specially-invited ghost of Stalin chortling alongside
What rot
I've just watched the whole thing
Zelensky is a bold brave bastard - or afraid of being offed - or, quite probably, both - but either way Zelensky misreads the room. Yes, he is provoked by stupid questions - the daft query about his suit is absurdly egregious - but Z gets angry - feeling he's not being taken seriously about Putin - and he starts lecturing Vance. J D Vance does NOT start the mano a mano stuff - Zelensky does. Zelensky starts the bickering. Then Zelensky continues his sharp, hectoring tone, and Trump loses his temper like a Mafia don being dissed by an unmade man, and then it all falls apart and all the ill-feeling between them (Hunter Biden, Z supporting the Dems, the sassytempt?) spills out into public viewing
The PB interpretation of this is ridiculous
LOL. World of your own.
And your constant references to PB being hysterical from the most hysterical poster ever just shows how detached from reality you are.
It also shows ,probably, the value of Starner's experience of handling big ego's, in the judicial system.
Zelensky, by contrast, a physically brave but politically unchallenged war leader. His approach didn't work for him with Trump yesterday, and now Starmer has to try and repair the damage on all sides.
- can Europe actually supply Ukraine with the weapons it needs if the US is actively trying to stop this? - if the US abandons Ukraine does it make nuclear proliferation and nuclear war probable before the end of this century?
The fiasco yesterday shows just how badly Starmer's visit could have gone. Not getting riled by Vance and employing the King's letter, Churchill's bust to full nauseating effect was indeed a triumph.
Hindsight is everything. Starmer's team now need to adjust and make Sunday a success too.
If he’s not very careful the state visit will become an albatross round Starmer’s neck, it may have already. The Trump despisers (eg me) thought it was an obscenity to begin with, the royalists will think it besmirches the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.
Completely disagree. It is leverage, which we badly need right now. Mandelson's odiousness will serve him brilliantly in hinting, subtly enough that Trump is constantly discombobulated, that this or that action by Trump may threaten Charles' ability to schedule the visit at an appropriate time, with appropriate pomp. Vance can't be in the room every time to manipulate Trump. We need to play Trump like a fiddle, and the state visit will help us do that.
What's the lever, tell Trump he won't get homemade scones at Balmoral if he doesn't shape up? He'll have a tantrum and move onto the next act of capriciousness. If there's any hint of public pressure regarding the state visit, Trump's tantrum will be even more volcanic. There's no state of equilibrium to be reached with Trump, just a constant ferment of impulse and vindictiveness.
- can Europe actually supply Ukraine with the weapons it needs if the US is actively trying to stop this? - if the US abandons Ukraine does it make nuclear proliferation and nuclear war probable before the end of this century?
According to Rory, such military kit as the UK and Europe has is so bound up with US software support that the US could make it useless at the drop of a hat.
Interesting summary here. This seems to be a take across left and right. Konstantin Kisin to Aaron Bastani have similar.
I only saw a little bit after reading a few comments here as I was watching an old episode of New Tricks. A far more worthwhile endeavour, I may try to catch it later.
Zelenskyy went there and was going to get a deal but didn’t.
‘I watched the entire press conference with Zelensky. There was 40 minutes of discussion up to the argument. Most people saw at most the last ten minutes. The whole video gives the proper context.
When I first watched the argument without the proper context, I thought it was possible that Trump and Vance ambushed Zelensky or were even trying to humiliate him. That's not what happened.
You had 40 minutes of calm conversation. Vance made a point that didn't attack Zelensky and wasn't even addressed to him, and Zelensky clearly started the argument.
In the first 40 minutes, Zelensky kept trying to go beyond what was negotiated in the deal. When Trump was asked a question, it was always "we'll see." Zelensky made blanket assertions that there would be no negotiating with Putin, and that Russia would pay for the war. When Trump said that it was a tragedy that people on both sides were dying, Zelensky interjected that the Russians were the invaders.
For his part, Trump made clear that the US would continue delivering military aid. All Zelensky had to do was remain calm for a few more minutes and they would've signed a deal.
The argument started when Trump pointed out that it would be hard to make a deal if you talk about Putin the way Zelensky does. Vance interjects to make the reasonable point that Biden called Putin names and that didn't get us anywhere.
The Zelensky/Trump dynamic was calm and stable. It was when Vance spoke that Zelensky started to interrogate him. Throughout the press conference to that point, everyone was making their arguments directly to the audience. Zelensky decided to challenge Vance and ask him hostile questions. He went back to his point that Putin never sticks to ceasefires, once again implying that negotiations are pointless. Why on earth would you do this? Then came the fight we all saw.
Zelensky was minutes away from being home free, and he would have had the deal and new commitments from the Trump administration. The point Vance made was directed against Biden and the media, taking them to task for speaking in moralistic terms. This offended Zelensky, and that began the argument.
I've been a fan of Zelensky up to this point, but this showed so much incompetence, if not emotional instability, that I don't see how he recovers from this. The relationship with the administration is broken. Ukraine should probably go with new leadership at this point.’
Typical PB. Avoid what’s written and just dissemble and distract. Waste of time.
Bastani, like Ash Sarwar has been on a journey and his contemporary views don’t resemble his views from a few years back.
I haven't been keeping track of Novara Media, except for a glimpse of Ash Sarkar's "Woke is dead" video and it wasn't something I wanted to sit thru the whole of. What is the nature of the journey Bastani/Novara have been on?
- can Europe actually supply Ukraine with the weapons it needs if the US is actively trying to stop this? - if the US abandons Ukraine does it make nuclear proliferation and nuclear war probable before the end of this century?
- can Europe actually supply Ukraine with the weapons it needs if the US is actively trying to stop this? - if the US abandons Ukraine does it make nuclear proliferation and nuclear war probable before the end of this century?
1. Not sure. 2. I think you mean by the end of March rather than "before the end of the century"
- can Europe actually supply Ukraine with the weapons it needs if the US is actively trying to stop this? - if the US abandons Ukraine does it make nuclear proliferation and nuclear war probable before the end of this century?
According to Rory, such military kit as the UK and Europe has is so bound up with US software support that the US could make it useless at the drop of a hat.
That's (part of) my question - is this actually true?
I woke up this morning and read PB's entire hysterical thread, and presumed the press conference had ended with J D Vance shoving Nebraska's largest steel pineapple up Zelenskyyyy's butt, as Trump applauded with the specially-invited ghost of Stalin chortling alongside
What rot
I've just watched the whole thing
Zelensky is a bold brave bastard - or afraid of being offed - or, quite probably, both - but either way Zelensky misreads the room. Yes, he is provoked by stupid questions - the daft query about his suit is absurdly egregious - but Z gets angry - feeling he's not being taken seriously about Putin - and he starts lecturing Vance. J D Vance does NOT start the mano a mano stuff - Zelensky does. Zelensky starts the bickering. Then Zelensky continues his sharp, hectoring tone, and Trump loses his temper like a Mafia don being dissed by an unmade man, and then it all falls apart and all the ill-feeling between them (Hunter Biden, Z supporting the Dems, the sassytempt?) spills out into public viewing
The PB interpretation of this is ridiculous
LOL. World of your own.
And your constant references to PB being hysterical from the most hysterical poster ever just shows how detached from reality you are.
Have you watched the whole thing? I doubt it
Because if you have it is obvious I am correct. The first discordant note comes in when some idiot queries Z's lack of a suit - and Zelensky is UNDERSTANDABLY quite annoyed. The trivial disrespect, etc. But this is from a hack not from Trump or Vance, and it's not really important
There is a slight off tone from then on, but - again - nothing disastrous. Later, Vance speaks up about the value of diplomacy, quite eloquently, nothing horrific. As he speaks, Vance addresses the room, the hacks, not Z. But Z seems to get ired by this and then he intervenes and directly speaks to Vance and Z uses a really spiky, prissy tone of voice, like Vance knows fuck all (maybe that's true, but the tone is not helpful) and then, even tho you can sense the discomfort rising - Z continues with this foolish lecturing - and THEN Trump loses his shit
And then it is all an out-take from Goodfellas
I admire Zelensky, I reckon he's a genuine hero, albeit flawed, but he foolishly poked a deeply erratic president and also patronised a very bright, self consciously newbie vice president, in one five minute spell of geostrategic calamitofuck
Also, I don't think it will really matter that much
It also shows ,probably, the value of Starner's experience of handling big ego's, in the judicial system.
Zelensky, by contrast, a physically brave but politically unchallenged war leader. His approach didn't work for him with Trump yesterday, and now Starmer has to try and repair the damage on all sides.
Zelensky did nothing wrong, he was just beaten up from behind by two fat kids.
"Zelenskyy has taken to X, formerly Twitter, to thank leaders who have posted their support on the social media platform.
They include the leaders of Germany, Spain, France, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Moldova, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Czech Republic, Finland, Portugal, Croatia, the European Parliament, the European Commission and European Council."
Can't help feeling there is something missing there.
Thank you America, thank you for your support, thank you for this visit. Thank you @POTUS, Congress, and the American people. Ukraine needs just and lasting peace, and we are working exactly for that. https://x.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1895555315716014324
This snark, aside from please his army of online fluffers, helps how ?
At least in his TV interviews Zelenskyy is more diplomatic and constructive about trying to rebuild the relationship.
It also shows ,probably, the value of Starner's experience of handling big ego's, in the judicial system.
Zelensky, by contrast, a physically brave but politically unchallenged war leader. His approach didn't work for him with Trump yesterday, and now Starmer has to try and repair the damage on all sides.
Zelensky did nothing wrong, he was just beaten up from behind by two fat kids.
I'm just catching up on last night's Newsnight. Asked who started the war in Ukraine, Trump's spokeswoman replied "Joe Biden".
I woke up this morning and read PB's entire hysterical thread, and presumed the press conference had ended with J D Vance shoving Nebraska's largest steel pineapple up Zelenskyyyy's butt, as Trump applauded with the specially-invited ghost of Stalin chortling alongside
What rot
I've just watched the whole thing
Zelensky is a bold brave bastard - or afraid of being offed - or, quite probably, both - but either way Zelensky misreads the room. Yes, he is provoked by stupid questions - the daft query about his suit is absurdly egregious - but Z gets angry - feeling he's not being taken seriously about Putin - and he starts lecturing Vance. J D Vance does NOT start the mano a mano stuff - Zelensky does. Zelensky starts the bickering. Then Zelensky continues his sharp, hectoring tone, and Trump loses his temper like a Mafia don being dissed by an unmade man, and then it all falls apart and all the ill-feeling between them (Hunter Biden, Z supporting the Dems, the sassytempt?) spills out into public viewing
The PB interpretation of this is ridiculous
You're not wrong, you're just off in a rabbit hole.
Zelenskyy was not diplomatic, as the govt stated last night. He made mistakes in the meeting, from a purely strategic point of view. He started the beef with Vance. He lost his temper.
But you're missing the big picture - he would have been selling Ukraine down the river if he hadn't stated his red lines on signing the minerals extortion crap. He would have been making a far bigger strategic mistake if he had gone into the private part of the meeting without any public commitments to security guarantees. He would have allowed Trump to define the narrative.
Z was the very definition of being backed into a corner. I can't see how he could have achieved a better outcome for Ukraine by any other actions.
- can Europe actually supply Ukraine with the weapons it needs if the US is actively trying to stop this? - if the US abandons Ukraine does it make nuclear proliferation and nuclear war probable before the end of this century?
France could supply some of its nukes to Ukraine.
The UK probably far less likely.
I'm thinking more about nobody being able to rely on anyone else's nuclear umbrella any more, and most countries trying to get nukes as soon as they can.
I woke up this morning and read PB's entire hysterical thread, and presumed the press conference had ended with J D Vance shoving Nebraska's largest steel pineapple up Zelenskyyyy's butt, as Trump applauded with the specially-invited ghost of Stalin chortling alongside
What rot
I've just watched the whole thing
Zelensky is a bold brave bastard - or afraid of being offed - or, quite probably, both - but either way Zelensky misreads the room. Yes, he is provoked by stupid questions - the daft query about his suit is absurdly egregious - but Z gets angry - feeling he's not being taken seriously about Putin - and he starts lecturing Vance. J D Vance does NOT start the mano a mano stuff - Zelensky does. Zelensky starts the bickering. Then Zelensky continues his sharp, hectoring tone, and Trump loses his temper like a Mafia don being dissed by an unmade man, and then it all falls apart and all the ill-feeling between them (Hunter
Biden, Z supporting the Dems, the sassytempt?) spills out into public viewing
The PB interpretation of this is ridiculous
Zelensky definitely doesn't help himself. Humiliating Trump or not respecting his preening self-image tends to not get you anywhere.
But, people need to watch around the 40 minute mark. The entire body language of the three changes when Vance gets involved.
I woke up this morning and read PB's entire hysterical thread, and presumed the press conference had ended with J D Vance shoving Nebraska's largest steel pineapple up Zelenskyyyy's butt, as Trump applauded with the specially-invited ghost of Stalin chortling alongside
What rot
I've just watched the whole thing
Zelensky is a bold brave bastard - or afraid of being offed - or, quite probably, both - but either way Zelensky misreads the room. Yes, he is provoked by stupid questions - the daft query about his suit is absurdly egregious - but Z gets angry - feeling he's not being taken seriously about Putin - and he starts lecturing Vance. J D Vance does NOT start the mano a mano stuff - Zelensky does. Zelensky starts the bickering. Then Zelensky continues his sharp, hectoring tone, and Trump loses his temper like a Mafia don being dissed by an unmade man, and then it all falls apart and all the ill-feeling between them (Hunter Biden, Z supporting the Dems, the sassytempt?) spills out into public viewing
Smith's selection has always been a mystery. He's a moderate bat, and poor wicketkeeper.
Does he bowl?
I think Liam Livingstone needs time out of the team. He has become so over focused on hit a 6 every ball, he appears to have lost the ability to build an innings.
- can Europe actually supply Ukraine with the weapons it needs if the US is actively trying to stop this? - if the US abandons Ukraine does it make nuclear proliferation and nuclear war probable before the end of this century?
According to Rory, such military kit as the UK and Europe has is so bound up with US software support that the US could make it useless at the drop of a hat.
That's (part of) my question - is this actually true?
Very probably not - though they could steadily degrade its usefulness. That's something we need to sort out quickly.
The new US is both isolationist, in terms of its existing alliances, and keen to restore economic relations with Europe's adversaries.
As yesterday's event show, it has little or no compunction in pulling the rug from under us over nothing more than a perceived slight.
That's no basis for our future security, however much we want to maintain a good relationship with them.
In any event, our reducing dependence on the US is something which would be more likely to please Trump than offended him.
Well, I slept like absolute shit. Glad I recorded all the stuff I needed yesterday (just barely ran out of time almost got podcast released). Will be up sometime this morning probably.
One of the few upsides of Trump's inconsistency and volatility is that Zelensky isn't wrong about the spat being bad, but perhaps recoverable.
F1 Testing, including some car design news, Monaco pit stop news, and Verstappen to Aston Martin rumour, plus how I think things stand. Luckily, most (not all) of my early predictions are looking reasonable.
Important note: the odds have already shifted. Piastri's out to 13 for the title at Ladbrokes, 14 with boost, which is too long given he can be backed each way at a fifth the odds for top 3. He can also be hedged at 12 on Betfair.
I woke up this morning and read PB's entire hysterical thread, and presumed the press conference had ended with J D Vance shoving Nebraska's largest steel pineapple up Zelenskyyyy's butt, as Trump applauded with the specially-invited ghost of Stalin chortling alongside
What rot
I've just watched the whole thing
Zelensky is a bold brave bastard - or afraid of being offed - or, quite probably, both - but either way Zelensky misreads the room. Yes, he is provoked by stupid questions - the daft query about his suit is absurdly egregious - but Z gets angry - feeling he's not being taken seriously about Putin - and he starts lecturing Vance. J D Vance does NOT start the mano a mano stuff - Zelensky does. Zelensky starts the bickering. Then Zelensky continues his sharp, hectoring tone, and Trump loses his temper like a Mafia don being dissed by an unmade man, and then it all falls apart and all the ill-feeling between them (Hunter Biden, Z supporting the Dems, the sassytempt?) spills out into public viewing
The PB interpretation of this is ridiculous
LOL. World of your own.
And your constant references to PB being hysterical from the most hysterical poster ever just shows how detached from reality you are.
Have you watched the whole thing? I doubt it
Because if you have it is obvious I am correct. The first discordant note comes in when some idiot queries Z's lack of a suit - and Zelensky is UNDERSTANDABLY quite annoyed. The trivial disrespect, etc. But this is from a hack not from Trump or Vance, and it's not really important
There is a slight off tone from then on, but - again - nothing disastrous. Later, Vance speaks up about the value of diplomacy, quite eloquently, nothing horrific. As he speaks, Vance addresses the room, the hacks, not Z. But Z seems to get ired by this and then he intervenes and directly speaks to Vance and Z uses a really spiky, prissy tone of voice, like Vance knows fuck all (maybe that's true, but the tone is not helpful) and then, even tho you can sense the discomfort rising - Z continues with this foolish lecturing - and THEN Trump loses his shit
And then it is all an out-take from Goodfellas
I admire Zelensky, I reckon he's a genuine hero, albeit flawed, but he foolishly poked a deeply erratic president and also patronised a very bright, self consciously newbie vice president, in one five minute spell of geostrategic calamitofuck
Also, I don't think it will really matter that much
The fiasco yesterday shows just how badly Starmer's visit could have gone. Not getting riled by Vance and employing the King's letter, Churchill's bust to full nauseating effect was indeed a triumph.
Hindsight is everything. Starmer's team now need to adjust and make Sunday a success too.
If he’s not very careful the state visit will become an albatross round Starmer’s neck, it may have already. The Trump despisers (eg me) thought it was an obscenity to begin with, the royalists will think it besmirches the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.
Completely disagree. It is leverage, which we badly need right now. Mandelson's odiousness will serve him brilliantly in hinting, subtly enough that Trump is constantly discombobulated, that this or that action by Trump may threaten Charles' ability to schedule the visit at an appropriate time, with appropriate pomp. Vance can't be in the room every time to manipulate Trump. We need to play Trump like a fiddle, and the state visit will help us do that.
What's the lever, tell Trump he won't get homemade scones at Balmoral if he doesn't shape up? He'll have a tantrum and move onto the next act of capriciousness. If there's any hint of public pressure regarding the state visit, Trump's tantrum will be even more volcanic. There's no state of equilibrium to be reached with Trump, just a constant ferment of impulse and vindictiveness.
Not public, private, and not in an escalatory way. This is the basics of diplomacy - if you have a 4 year old at home, or work with teenagers, you'd get this instinctively. That we have to do this with the leader of the free world (ha!) is incredibly depressing, but it doesn't make it not true.
I woke up this morning and read PB's entire hysterical thread, and presumed the press conference had ended with J D Vance shoving Nebraska's largest steel pineapple up Zelenskyyyy's butt, as Trump applauded with the specially-invited ghost of Stalin chortling alongside
What rot
I've just watched the whole thing
Zelensky is a bold brave bastard - or afraid of being offed - or, quite probably, both - but either way Zelensky misreads the room. Yes, he is provoked by stupid questions - the daft query about his suit is absurdly egregious - but Z gets angry - feeling he's not being taken seriously about Putin - and he starts lecturing Vance. J D Vance does NOT start the mano a mano stuff - Zelensky does. Zelensky starts the bickering. Then Zelensky continues his sharp, hectoring tone, and Trump loses his temper like a Mafia don being dissed by an unmade man, and then it all falls apart and all the ill-feeling between them (Hunter Biden, Z supporting the Dems, the sassytempt?) spills out into public viewing
The PB interpretation of this is ridiculous
LOL. World of your own.
And your constant references to PB being hysterical from the most hysterical poster ever just shows how detached from reality you are.
Have you watched the whole thing? I doubt it
Because if you have it is obvious I am correct. The first discordant note comes in when some idiot queries Z's lack of a suit - and Zelensky is UNDERSTANDABLY quite annoyed. The trivial disrespect, etc. But this is from a hack not from Trump or Vance, and it's not really important
There is a slight off tone from then on, but - again - nothing disastrous. Later, Vance speaks up about the value of diplomacy, quite eloquently, nothing horrific. As he speaks, Vance addresses the room, the hacks, not Z. But Z seems to get ired by this and then he intervenes and directly speaks to Vance and Z uses a really spiky, prissy tone of voice, like Vance knows fuck all (maybe that's true, but the tone is not helpful) and then, even tho you can sense the discomfort rising - Z continues with this foolish lecturing - and THEN Trump loses his shit
And then it is all an out-take from Goodfellas
I admire Zelensky, I reckon he's a genuine hero, albeit flawed, but he foolishly poked a deeply erratic president and also patronised a very bright, self consciously newbie vice president, in one five minute spell of geostrategic calamitofuck
Also, I don't think it will really matter that much
I agree with a lot of this. My take is that I don’t think there was a deliberate plan by anyone to sabotage the meeting. What happened was the result of thin skinned egotists losing it.
After about 30 mins the meeting which has been largely cordial is wrapping up. Vance makes a point targeted against Biden. Says Biden’s chest thumping didn’t stop Putin invading Ukraine. Vance says Trump has the answers - diplomacy (= dialogue) and dealing with Putin.
Z addresses Vance somewhat confrontationally. Makes the point that dealing with Putin doesn’t work. A deal was struck with Putin in 2022 and Putin went back on the deal. Z concludes to V “JD what kind of diplomacy you are speaking about? What do you mean?”
Vance is riled. He feels challenged by Z who is effectively saying Vance is wrong. Diplomacy doesn’t work with Putin.
Vance loses his cool. He is angry that Z has publicly disagreed with his one significant contribution to the meeting, challenging him in front of the whole world. He finds it disrespectful and petulantly reacts saying Zelensky is ungrateful. He raises his voice, points his finger, accuses Z of criticising America, says Ukraine is struggling in its war effort and calls Z disrespectful.
Z does not accept Vance’s portrayal of Ukraine struggling. Warns America that Putin could come for them next and that they will feel the influence (threat) of Russia
Trump - triggered initially by Vance saying Z is disrespecting America is further triggered by Z telling America what it feels and it all kicks off.
Vance pours oil onto the fire challenging Z by asking him if he has even thanked America for its help. Takes him to task for “campaigning for the Democrats in Pennsylvania”
It then further escalates.
Conclusion. Z was perhaps unwise to publicly challenge Vance’s “diplomacy thesis”. Vance felt belittled by this and reacted calling Z disrespectful and ungrateful. Trump was triggered by Vance and further triggered by Z forecasting America would in the future also fell threatened by Russia. Trump and Vance both lose it.
I woke up this morning and read PB's entire hysterical thread, and presumed the press conference had ended with J D Vance shoving Nebraska's largest steel pineapple up Zelenskyyyy's butt, as Trump applauded with the specially-invited ghost of Stalin chortling alongside
What rot
I've just watched the whole thing
Zelensky is a bold brave bastard - or afraid of being offed - or, quite probably, both - but either way Zelensky misreads the room. Yes, he is provoked by stupid questions - the daft query about his suit is absurdly egregious - but Z gets angry - feeling he's not being taken seriously about Putin - and he starts lecturing Vance. J D Vance does NOT start the mano a mano stuff - Zelensky does. Zelensky starts the bickering. Then Zelensky continues his sharp, hectoring tone, and Trump loses his temper like a Mafia don being dissed by an unmade man, and then it all falls apart and all the ill-feeling between them (Hunter Biden, Z supporting the Dems, the sassytempt?) spills out into public viewing
The PB interpretation of this is ridiculous
You're not wrong, you're just off in a rabbit hole.
Zelenskyy was not diplomatic, as the govt stated last night. He made mistakes in the meeting, from a purely strategic point of view. He started the beef with Vance. He lost his temper.
But you're missing the big picture - he would have been selling Ukraine down the river if he hadn't stated his red lines on signing the minerals extortion crap. He would have been making a far bigger strategic mistake if he had gone into the private part of the meeting without any public commitments to security guarantees. He would have allowed Trump to define the narrative.
Z was the very definition of being backed into a corner. I can't see how he could have achieved a better outcome for Ukraine by any other actions.
I am talking specifically about the press conference and PB's insane over-reaction last night - go read it. Bonkers:
And it is all based on a deliberately skewed edit, of the last ten minutes, which - out of context - does look like an attempt to ambush Z, if not bully him
But seen in context it is Zelensky that fucks up the most, and anyway all this stuff about "NATO being dead" and "today the world changed" is histrionic nonsense. Trump explicitly commits to NATO earlier on, as long as the Europeans pay more, plus ca change
As for your wider point, maybe....
Very hard to predict from here, but my guess is Z - or more likely a new Ukrainian leader? - will sign some kind of deal and the war will end, and this will be regarded as a weird outbreak of Scorsese amidst the Tarkovsky
It's hard to know exactly what an appropriate response to this is in relation to the USA, but I do know one thing: the meeting of European leaders this Sunday could not have had a clearer impetus.
If they collectively bottle taking decisive measures to allow Europe to stand alone in defence within 3-5 years, including defending Ukraine to the extent that we are capable of doing so, starting Monday, every single one of them deserves to be thrown out of office.
If things weren't clear before, they surely are now.
Unfortunately Germany won't be in a position to promise increased defence spending because that utter shit Merz refused to talk about reforming the debt brake on any of the dozen times the outgoing government asked him to consider it over the last year or more.
Whether something can be done before the new parliament (that has a 1 third blocking minority AfD plus die Linke) convenes isn't certain. Today die Linke threatened to go to the constitutional court if an attempt is made using the old parliament.
But you know there are historical reasons Germany is reticent to get involved in war in Ukraine. Why don’t you just be honest and explain to us that you understand that, rather than hide behind those reasons in your criticism of Merz?
Huh? Should I bother answering this? I'll just say your reply to me doesn't address anything I wrote in any way whatsoever and leave it at that.
UK journalism often refers to this German reticence - should we ignore it when UK journalists do this? Or is it a real thing, the sound of German language in Ukraine winds up Pro Russia Ukrainians or something? It’s not all about 2nd WW? is it first WW or prior to that?
What's it got to do with the German constitutional debt brake?
You seem reticent to explain there is or isn’t this reticence thing to us - why?
I was talking about the debt brake - which is why I ask you what your comments have to do with the debt brake?
But on the issue of sensitivity in Germany around German military involvement in Ukraine (and elsewhere) for historical reasons, I'm sure you can figure it out. I'll give you one hint - @JosiasJessop is an idiot.
Okay, so you disagree.
So let me ask a question: how long should Germany use their sins of eighty years ago as an excuse for inaction? How long will those 'sensitivities' last? A hundred years? Two hundred years? The Baltics? Poland? The Rhine?
You literally couldn't see any difference between things that happened 80 years ago and things that happened 200 years ago!
Of course i can see the difference.
So please answer my question: how long should Germany use their sins of eighty years ago as an excuse for inaction?
Evidently, in your mind it is greater than eighty years and less than two hundred. I'm just interested in your view on this, and your reasoning.
But I also think that the 'sensitivities' stuff is just rubbish after eighty years. An excuse for inaction, playing into Russia's hands.
Personally, I think the West should have either from the start given Ukraine whatever support it needed to defeat Russia, or not bothered. I blame Biden for his caution and Germany has consistently followed the American lead, at least up until Trump came back.
If you look at the last decades Germany has been reluctant to get involved in any foreign military adventures. The first combat mission was Kosovo 1999, and since that Afghanistan - though that was intended as a rebuilding mission. The US (and Britain and France for that matter) have been far more gung-ho in terms of foreign military adventures, and are nuclear powers as well. Expecting Germany to lead any military operations is a bit unrealistic.
If it turns out that Biden was all for NATO planes bombing the shit out of the Russian columns when they first advanced in 2022, and was only dissuaded by the German government I'll revise my opinion.
But also you seem to have some weird obsession with Germany, when other European allies, especially France and Italy, have provided a fraction of the support. Indeed you weirdly praise France in the same breath as condemning Germany.
I was going to give your comment a 'like', then read your final paragraph.
There are different sorts of 'support': humanitarian, military, financial, pledged, delivered, etc, etc.
France (and the UK...) have given missiles that allow Ukraine to strike very long distances. These are exceptionally useful to Ukraine. Germany refuses to give their very useful missiles. Surely you can see that's a discredit to Germany? Ditto the disgraceful delay in allowing Leopards to go over.
Germany's done many good things for Ukraine. But don't pretend they've been perfect. (*)
Also, as we are seeing in the USA, talk matters. Johnson, Sunak, and now Starmer have all been very clear in their support for Ukraine. As has Macron in France. Germany under Scholz seemed rather more equivocal. And yes, they followed the USA like a little poodle. Perhaps some leadership, and saying "These are our values, and Russia is against them!" might have been better than: "We'll just follow the USA."
But you still have not answered my question...
(*) Neither have we; but we shamefully had less to give.
Your footnote is unfair on the UK
We gave early - which was critical to Ukraine’s survival - and we rallied others to their course. Those two actions alone put us in the top rank
It's hard to know exactly what an appropriate response to this is in relation to the USA, but I do know one thing: the meeting of European leaders this Sunday could not have had a clearer impetus.
If they collectively bottle taking decisive measures to allow Europe to stand alone in defence within 3-5 years, including defending Ukraine to the extent that we are capable of doing so, starting Monday, every single one of them deserves to be thrown out of office.
If things weren't clear before, they surely are now.
Unfortunately Germany won't be in a position to promise increased defence spending because that utter shit Merz refused to talk about reforming the debt brake on any of the dozen times the outgoing government asked him to consider it over the last year or more.
Whether something can be done before the new parliament (that has a 1 third blocking minority AfD plus die Linke) convenes isn't certain. Today die Linke threatened to go to the constitutional court if an attempt is made using the old parliament.
But you know there are historical reasons Germany is reticent to get involved in war in Ukraine. Why don’t you just be honest and explain to us that you understand that, rather than hide behind those reasons in your criticism of Merz?
Huh? Should I bother answering this? I'll just say your reply to me doesn't address anything I wrote in any way whatsoever and leave it at that.
UK journalism often refers to this German reticence - should we ignore it when UK journalists do this? Or is it a real thing, the sound of German language in Ukraine winds up Pro Russia Ukrainians or something? It’s not all about 2nd WW? is it first WW or prior to that?
What's it got to do with the German constitutional debt brake?
You seem reticent to explain there is or isn’t this reticence thing to us - why?
I was talking about the debt brake - which is why I ask you what your comments have to do with the debt brake?
But on the issue of sensitivity in Germany around German military involvement in Ukraine (and elsewhere) for historical reasons, I'm sure you can figure it out. I'll give you one hint - @JosiasJessop is an idiot.
Okay, so you disagree.
So let me ask a question: how long should Germany use their sins of eighty years ago as an excuse for inaction? How long will those 'sensitivities' last? A hundred years? Two hundred years? The Baltics? Poland? The Rhine?
You literally couldn't see any difference between things that happened 80 years ago and things that happened 200 years ago!
Of course i can see the difference.
So please answer my question: how long should Germany use their sins of eighty years ago as an excuse for inaction?
Evidently, in your mind it is greater than eighty years and less than two hundred. I'm just interested in your view on this, and your reasoning.
But I also think that the 'sensitivities' stuff is just rubbish after eighty years. An excuse for inaction, playing into Russia's hands.
Personally, I think the West should have either from the start given Ukraine whatever support it needed to defeat Russia, or not bothered. I blame Biden for his caution and Germany has consistently followed the American lead, at least up until Trump came back.
If you look at the last decades Germany has been reluctant to get involved in any foreign military adventures. The first combat mission was Kosovo 1999, and since that Afghanistan - though that was intended as a rebuilding mission. The US (and Britain and France for that matter) have been far more gung-ho in terms of foreign military adventures, and are nuclear powers as well. Expecting Germany to lead any military operations is a bit unrealistic.
If it turns out that Biden was all for NATO planes bombing the shit out of the Russian columns when they first advanced in 2022, and was only dissuaded by the German government I'll revise my opinion.
But also you seem to have some weird obsession with Germany, when other European allies, especially France and Italy, have provided a fraction of the support. Indeed you weirdly praise France in the same breath as condemning Germany.
I was going to give your comment a 'like', then read your final paragraph.
There are different sorts of 'support': humanitarian, military, financial, pledged, delivered, etc, etc.
France (and the UK...) have given missiles that allow Ukraine to strike very long distances. These are exceptionally useful to Ukraine. Germany refuses to give their very useful missiles. Surely you can see that's a discredit to Germany? Ditto the disgraceful delay in allowing Leopards to go over.
Germany's done many good things for Ukraine. But don't pretend they've been perfect. (*)
Also, as we are seeing in the USA, talk matters. Johnson, Sunak, and now Starmer have all been very clear in their support for Ukraine. As has Macron in France. Germany under Scholz seemed rather more equivocal. And yes, they followed the USA like a little poodle. Perhaps some leadership, and saying "These are our values, and Russia is against them!" might have been better than: "We'll just follow the USA."
But you still have not answered my question...
(*) Neither have we; but we shamefully had less to give.
Your footnote is unfair on the UK
We gave early - which was critical to Ukraine’s survival - and we rallied others to their course. Those two actions alone put us in the top rank
I woke up this morning and read PB's entire hysterical thread, and presumed the press conference had ended with J D Vance shoving Nebraska's largest steel pineapple up Zelenskyyyy's butt, as Trump applauded with the specially-invited ghost of Stalin chortling alongside
What rot
I've just watched the whole thing
Zelensky is a bold brave bastard - or afraid of being offed - or, quite probably, both - but either way Zelensky misreads the room. Yes, he is provoked by stupid questions - the daft query about his suit is absurdly egregious - but Z gets angry - feeling he's not being taken seriously about Putin - and he starts lecturing Vance. J D Vance does NOT start the mano a mano stuff - Zelensky does. Zelensky starts the bickering. Then Zelensky continues his sharp, hectoring tone, and Trump loses his temper like a Mafia don being dissed by an unmade man, and then it all falls apart and all the ill-feeling between them (Hunter Biden, Z supporting the Dems, the sassytempt?) spills out into public viewing
The PB interpretation of this is ridiculous
LOL. World of your own.
And your constant references to PB being hysterical from the most hysterical poster ever just shows how detached from reality you are.
Have you watched the whole thing? I doubt it
Because if you have it is obvious I am correct. The first discordant note comes in when some idiot queries Z's lack of a suit - and Zelensky is UNDERSTANDABLY quite annoyed. The trivial disrespect, etc. But this is from a hack not from Trump or Vance, and it's not really important
There is a slight off tone from then on, but - again - nothing disastrous. Later, Vance speaks up about the value of diplomacy, quite eloquently, nothing horrific. As he speaks, Vance addresses the room, the hacks, not Z. But Z seems to get ired by this and then he intervenes and directly speaks to Vance and Z uses a really spiky, prissy tone of voice, like Vance knows fuck all (maybe that's true, but the tone is not helpful) and then, even tho you can sense the discomfort rising - Z continues with this foolish lecturing - and THEN Trump loses his shit
And then it is all an out-take from Goodfellas
I admire Zelensky, I reckon he's a genuine hero, albeit flawed, but he foolishly poked a deeply erratic president and also patronised a very bright, self consciously newbie vice president, in one five minute spell of geostrategic calamitofuck
Also, I don't think it will really matter that much
I agree with a lot of this. My take is that I don’t think there was a deliberate plan by anyone to sabotage the meeting. What happened was the result of thin skinned egotists losing it.
After about 30 mins the meeting which has been largely cordial is wrapping up. Vance makes a point targeted against Biden. Says Biden’s chest thumping didn’t stop Putin invading Ukraine. Vance says Trump has the answers - diplomacy (= dialogue) and dealing with Putin.
Z addresses Vance somewhat confrontationally. Makes the point that dealing with Putin doesn’t work. A deal was struck with Putin in 2022 and Putin went back on the deal. Z concludes to V “JD what kind of diplomacy you are speaking about? What do you mean?”
Vance is riled. He feels challenged by Z who is effectively saying Vance is wrong. Diplomacy doesn’t work with Putin.
Vance loses his cool. He is angry that Z has publicly disagreed with his one significant contribution to the meeting, challenging him in front of the whole world. He finds it disrespectful and petulantly reacts saying Zelensky is ungrateful. He raises his voice, points his finger, accuses Z of criticising America, says Ukraine is struggling in its war effort and calls Z disrespectful.
Z does not accept Vance’s portrayal of Ukraine struggling. Warns America that Putin could come for them next and that they will feel the influence (threat) of Russia
Trump - triggered initially by Vance saying Z is disrespecting America is further triggered by Z telling America what it feels and it all kicks off.
Vance pours oil onto the fire challenging Z by asking him if he has even thanked America for its help. Takes him to task for “campaigning for the Democrats in Pennsylvania”
It then further escalates.
Conclusion. Z was perhaps unwise to publicly challenge Vance’s “diplomacy thesis”. Vance felt belittled by this and reacted calling Z disrespectful and ungrateful. Trump was triggered by Vance and further triggered by Z forecasting America would in the future also fell threatened by Russia. Trump and Vance both lose it.
There's some good analysis here, but I think Vance's aggressive, almosr proud inexperience, as Leon alludes to, is key.
Zelensky risks a lot by throwing into doubt any notion of a negotiaton with Putin. Vance then inexperiencedly feels he has to defend both his own idea of diplomacy,, and Trump's dignity, and also do that in a very public, "new politics" way. I doubt that the result afterwards is what he wanted.
I woke up this morning and read PB's entire hysterical thread, and presumed the press conference had ended with J D Vance shoving Nebraska's largest steel pineapple up Zelenskyyyy's butt, as Trump applauded with the specially-invited ghost of Stalin chortling alongside
What rot
I've just watched the whole thing
Zelensky is a bold brave bastard - or afraid of being offed - or, quite probably, both - but either way Zelensky misreads the room. Yes, he is provoked by stupid questions - the daft query about his suit is absurdly egregious - but Z gets angry - feeling he's not being taken seriously about Putin - and he starts lecturing Vance. J D Vance does NOT start the mano a mano stuff - Zelensky does. Zelensky starts the bickering. Then Zelensky continues his sharp, hectoring tone, and Trump loses his temper like a Mafia don being dissed by an unmade man, and then it all falls apart and all the ill-feeling between them (Hunter Biden, Z supporting the Dems, the sassytempt?) spills out into public viewing
The PB interpretation of this is ridiculous
You're not wrong, you're just off in a rabbit hole.
Zelenskyy was not diplomatic, as the govt stated last night. He made mistakes in the meeting, from a purely strategic point of view. He started the beef with Vance. He lost his temper.
But you're missing the big picture - he would have been selling Ukraine down the river if he hadn't stated his red lines on signing the minerals extortion crap. He would have been making a far bigger strategic mistake if he had gone into the private part of the meeting without any public commitments to security guarantees. He would have allowed Trump to define the narrative.
Z was the very definition of being backed into a corner. I can't see how he could have achieved a better outcome for Ukraine by any other actions.
Exactly this. A mugging is a mugging. Should you try to avoid being mugged through self defence? Probably. But if someone sets out to mug you, they are telling you something.
The UK can’t re-calibrate its defence overnight away from the USA.
It might make some people happy if Starmer told Trump where to go but this would be an ultimately disastrous move both for the UK , Europe and Ukraine .
Starmer needs to continue his juggling act for as long as possible and buy some time.
Yesterday at least confirmed to those still in denial that Trump is totally on the side of Putin .
It’s worth noting that if you read Chamberlain’s private letters he knew exactly what he was doing - buying time to rearm. And he knew exactly how popular history would judge him for it. But he did it because it was the best thing for the country.
It may be that Starmer is following the same play book (I’m not close enough to him to know his private worries)
- can Europe actually supply Ukraine with the weapons it needs if the US is actively trying to stop this? - if the US abandons Ukraine does it make nuclear proliferation and nuclear war probable before the end of this century?
According to Rory, such military kit as the UK and Europe has is so bound up with US software support that the US could make it useless at the drop of a hat.
That's (part of) my question - is this actually true?
* The nukes have to be periodically recalibrated (right word?) at an American facility * Mission-specific parameters from the F35b aircraft on the carriers have to be uploaded from an American facility * The Apache helicopters were hangar-bound for ages due to software problems(?) but I think it's sorted now
Those are the biggies. We also have American large reconnaissance "Rivet Joint" aircraft and heavy-lift Chinook helicopters and heavy-lift C17 Globemasters but I don't know how much external permission they need.
Other than that (!) I think we're ok. UK war materiel in terms of aircraft, ships, tanks, etc has been mostly homegrown or European since the 70s and Brexit hasn't yet dented that.
(The above is from memory since I am on the tablet visiting relatives and may be wrong. I can't remember if we have MLRS. I don't remember if we source our ammo and artillery shells from the States. There may be other omissions/errors)
Ask Zelensky and Ukraine and see their response if you believe that nonsense
And do you support Starmer withdrawing the King's invitation to Trump?
The King should withdraw the invitation.
That would 100% be the wrong thing to do
It would inflame the situation.
It is something Trump wants. We can try to squeeze a little advantage out of it. And if it gets cancelled later then so be it
UK state visits have nothing to do with us liking the visitor or their moral standing. Have a look at the lists of past state visits. More likely wrong un than not, the good guys we can just negotiate with normally.
Where did I say otherwise? Vainglorious dictators like to be entertained by the King. It’s an immensely valuable diplomatic card.
I've been a fan of Zelensky up to this point, but this showed so much incompetence, if not emotional instability, that I don't see how he recovers from this. The relationship with the administration is broken. Ukraine should probably go with new leadership at this point.’
This analysis neglects some domestic Ukrainian politics. Z has made his bed with the Azovs, Right Sektor and other assorted maniacs. If he didn't push back to the absolute maximum and slag Russia on the biggest stage he's ever worked before signing any deal then there is a decent chance he'd be killed when he got back. As was possible with psychos like DJT and JDV, he pushed a bit too hard.
Still, he's part of the problem now, not part of the solution and might have to be coup'ed out of the way for the SMO to end.
Funny how you are moving the agenda to what Putin wants
What really seemed to upset Vance and Trump was Zelensky campaigning in Pennsylvania for the Democrats and that wasn't, in fairness, the smartest move. Thank goodness none of our parties were stupid enough to send supporters to campaign for Harris.
I agree this was definitely a trigger. In that context it's funny that Starmer got away with Labour's actions. Once again it shows that this was a hatchet job on Z.
Starmer didn't get away with anything Trump and Vance are seriously harsh about Starmer's restricting free speech and the Apple backdoor nonsense
Watch the WHOLE press conference
I take it you're now trying to stay current by abandoning *all* punctuation. Is communication via a series of grunts on the way?
The fiasco yesterday shows just how badly Starmer's visit could have gone. Not getting riled by Vance and employing the King's letter, Churchill's bust to full nauseating effect was indeed a triumph.
Hindsight is everything. Starmer's team now need to adjust and make Sunday a success too.
If he’s not very careful the state visit will become an albatross round Starmer’s neck, it may have already. The Trump despisers (eg me) thought it was an obscenity to begin with, the royalists will think it besmirches the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.
Completely disagree. It is leverage, which we badly need right now. Mandelson's odiousness will serve him brilliantly in hinting, subtly enough that Trump is constantly discombobulated, that this or that action by Trump may threaten Charles' ability to schedule the visit at an appropriate time, with appropriate pomp. Vance can't be in the room every time to manipulate Trump. We need to play Trump like a fiddle, and the state visit will help us do that.
What's the lever, tell Trump he won't get homemade scones at Balmoral if he doesn't shape up? He'll have a tantrum and move onto the next act of capriciousness. If there's any hint of public pressure regarding the state visit, Trump's tantrum will be even more volcanic. There's no state of equilibrium to be reached with Trump, just a constant ferment of impulse and vindictiveness.
Not public, private, and not in an escalatory way. This is the basics of diplomacy - if you have a 4 year old at home, or work with teenagers, you'd get this instinctively. That we have to do this with the leader of the free world (ha!) is incredibly depressing, but it doesn't make it not true.
A pragmatic analysis would ask what did the last Trump state visit achieve, and what does the current proffered visit want to achieve? The available evidence suggests visit 1 not much, and whatever the current aim was, the wheels fell off visit 2 almost immediately. In general I think quiet or loud appeasement of toddlers, teenagers and thin skinned tyrants doesn’t tend to end well, but at least the former can evolve and grow up, the latter don’t.
"Zelenskyy has taken to X, formerly Twitter, to thank leaders who have posted their support on the social media platform.
They include the leaders of Germany, Spain, France, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Moldova, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Czech Republic, Finland, Portugal, Croatia, the European Parliament, the European Commission and European Council."
Can't help feeling there is something missing there.
What really seemed to upset Vance and Trump was Zelensky campaigning in Pennsylvania for the Democrats and that wasn't, in fairness, the smartest move. Thank goodness none of our parties were stupid enough to send supporters to campaign for Harris.
that's been happening for as long as trans-atlantic travel has been affordable. Anyone wetting the bed over that is not a serious person
I've been a fan of Zelensky up to this point, but this showed so much incompetence, if not emotional instability, that I don't see how he recovers from this. The relationship with the administration is broken. Ukraine should probably go with new leadership at this point.’
This analysis neglects some domestic Ukrainian politics. Z has made his bed with the Azovs, Right Sektor and other assorted maniacs. If he didn't push back to the absolute maximum and slag Russia on the biggest stage he's ever worked before signing any deal then there is a decent chance he'd be killed when he got back. As was possible with psychos like DJT and JDV, he pushed a bit too hard.
Still, he's part of the problem now, not part of the solution and might have to be coup'ed out of the way for the SMO to end.
That's an incredibly naive view of Russian intentions.
Putin's invasion will end either when his army is smashed or when he has destroyed Ukrainian independence. Zelensky being President or not makes no difference.
The way for the war to end is the same way as it's always been - Russia respects the international borders it promised many times to accept and forgets about 19th century fantasies of empire.
Given that Trump's animosity towards Zelenskyy seems to be driven at least partly by his hatred of all things Biden, Zelenskyy quitting or at least "saying Biden was the worst, if only Trump hadn't had his election win in 2020 stolen, Putin would never have invaded" is probably the only way some US support for Ukraine might be saved.
Anyone have any news on how the WH clusterfuck is going down stateside? I imagine the MAGAs will be tutting over Zelensky’s disrespectful dress sense while caressing their AR-15s, but what about the centrist dads?
same split as ever, slight uptick on democrats talking about emigrating, but you'll be pushed to find any republicans giving a shit about it.
I woke up this morning and read PB's entire hysterical thread, and presumed the press conference had ended with J D Vance shoving Nebraska's largest steel pineapple up Zelenskyyyy's butt, as Trump applauded with the specially-invited ghost of Stalin chortling alongside
What rot
I've just watched the whole thing
Zelensky is a bold brave bastard - or afraid of being offed - or, quite probably, both - but either way Zelensky misreads the room. Yes, he is provoked by stupid questions - the daft query about his suit is absurdly egregious - but Z gets angry - feeling he's not being taken seriously about Putin - and he starts lecturing Vance. J D Vance does NOT start the mano a mano stuff - Zelensky does. Zelensky starts the bickering. Then Zelensky continues his sharp, hectoring tone, and Trump loses his temper like a Mafia don being dissed by an unmade man, and then it all falls apart and all the ill-feeling between them (Hunter Biden, Z supporting the Dems, the sassytempt?) spills out into public viewing
The PB interpretation of this is ridiculous
You're not wrong, you're just off in a rabbit hole.
Zelenskyy was not diplomatic, as the govt stated last night. He made mistakes in the meeting, from a purely strategic point of view. He started the beef with Vance. He lost his temper.
But you're missing the big picture - he would have been selling Ukraine down the river if he hadn't stated his red lines on signing the minerals extortion crap. He would have been making a far bigger strategic mistake if he had gone into the private part of the meeting without any public commitments to security guarantees. He would have allowed Trump to define the narrative.
Z was the very definition of being backed into a corner. I can't see how he could have achieved a better outcome for Ukraine by any other actions.
Leon's just copying out what he just read on Fox News.
Even Fox is saying the real reason for the breakdown is that Ukraine wasn't offered any security guarantees and - as Z had said clearly before the visit - they wouldn't sign without some guarantee against future invasion. Whereas Trump had everything set up for a signing ceremony and expected to bounce Z into the deal.
It is credible that the real reason for the public breakdown unfolded out of view.
Interesting summary here. This seems to be a take across left and right. Konstantin Kisin to Aaron Bastani have similar.
I only saw a little bit after reading a few comments here as I was watching an old episode of New Tricks. A far more worthwhile endeavour, I may try to catch it later.
Zelenskyy went there and was going to get a deal but didn’t.
‘I watched the entire press conference with Zelensky. There was 40 minutes of discussion up to the argument. Most people saw at most the last ten minutes. The whole video gives the proper context.
When I first watched the argument without the proper context, I thought it was possible that Trump and Vance ambushed Zelensky or were even trying to humiliate him. That's not what happened.
You had 40 minutes of calm conversation. Vance made a point that didn't attack Zelensky and wasn't even addressed to him, and Zelensky clearly started the argument.
In the first 40 minutes, Zelensky kept trying to go beyond what was negotiated in the deal. When Trump was asked a question, it was always "we'll see." Zelensky made blanket assertions that there would be no negotiating with Putin, and that Russia would pay for the war. When Trump said that it was a tragedy that people on both sides were dying, Zelensky interjected that the Russians were the invaders.
For his part, Trump made clear that the US would continue delivering military aid. All Zelensky had to do was remain calm for a few more minutes and they would've signed a deal.
The argument started when Trump pointed out that it would be hard to make a deal if you talk about Putin the way Zelensky does. Vance interjects to make the reasonable point that Biden called Putin names and that didn't get us anywhere.
The Zelensky/Trump dynamic was calm and stable. It was when Vance spoke that Zelensky started to interrogate him. Throughout the press conference to that point, everyone was making their arguments directly to the audience. Zelensky decided to challenge Vance and ask him hostile questions. He went back to his point that Putin never sticks to ceasefires, once again implying that negotiations are pointless. Why on earth would you do this? Then came the fight we all saw.
Zelensky was minutes away from being home free, and he would have had the deal and new commitments from the Trump administration. The point Vance made was directed against Biden and the media, taking them to task for speaking in moralistic terms. This offended Zelensky, and that began the argument.
I've been a fan of Zelensky up to this point, but this showed so much incompetence, if not emotional instability, that I don't see how he recovers from this. The relationship with the administration is broken. Ukraine should probably go with new leadership at this point.’
Fuckin' hell Taz. I hope you have posted this to demonstrate what a fuckin' melon Bastani is.
Zelensky was gaslit by the Trump administration. He was ambushed and then we have useful idiots equalising the blame or putting it firmly on Zelensky 's shoulders. One should expect that from a twunt like Bastani, but BBC USA Editor Sarah Smith (daughter of perhaps the greatest modern Labour Prime Minister that never was) should be sacked for her myopic analysis that Zelensky was the aggressor.
Nah, that was Roy Jenkins or possibly Denis Healy. John Smith was an affable chap and quite bright but not in their class.
Ask Zelensky and Ukraine and see their response if you believe that nonsense
And do you support Starmer withdrawing the King's invitation to Trump?
The King should withdraw the invitation.
That would 100% be the wrong thing to do
It would inflame the situation.
It is something Trump wants. We can try to squeeze a little advantage out of it. And if it gets cancelled later then so be it
UK state visits have nothing to do with us liking the visitor or their moral standing. Have a look at the lists of past state visits. More likely wrong un than not, the good guys we can just negotiate with normally.
Where did I say otherwise? Vainglorious dictators like to be entertained by the King. It’s an immensely valuable diplomatic card.
What really seemed to upset Vance and Trump was Zelensky campaigning in Pennsylvania for the Democrats and that wasn't, in fairness, the smartest move. Thank goodness none of our parties were stupid enough to send supporters to campaign for Harris.
I agree this was definitely a trigger. In that context it's funny that Starmer got away with Labour's actions. Once again it shows that this was a hatchet job on Z.
Starmer didn't get away with anything Trump and Vance are seriously harsh about Starmer's restricting free speech and the Apple backdoor nonsense
Watch the WHOLE press conference
I mean specifically the Labour representatives going to campaign for Harris. I didn't see Trump or Vance use that against Starmer; did I miss it?
I think that all of this is a series of dishonest red herrings, tbh.
Here is an FT piece about a group of Republicans coming to the UK in 2015 to help the Tories campaign in marginal seats. This is just normal, and has been so since the time of Mrs Thatcher, and perhaps earlier (I wasn't around). https://www.ft.com/content/48d94f08-e82b-11e4-9960-00144feab7de
The President of Ukraine visiting a US Munitions plant with a representative of the US Govt to thank the workers for making shells for his country is actually exactly what Vance was demanding, ie gratitude. The issue is perhaps the Vance fantasises about the state as politicised against him. Leaving aside that Vance's demands about "have you thanked us" are nonsense, the USA already having been thanked again at the start of the meeting. I say Vance's upset is entirely tactical.
The free speech stuff is weird. The examples in Vance's Munich speech were fabrications - whether because he's manipulating or because he's ignorant I cannot tell. "Facebook poster jailed for hurty words" claims I have seen have almost all been for far more serious offences, such as calling for hotels full of brown people to be burnt down with the brown people still in them. That's an attempted wedge issue by elements on the Right of our politics.
It's all mainly Trump & Vance reacting to images they have projected on the inside of their own heads, or a deliberate political tactic. Vance gets seriously harsh when anyone refuses to kneel down and lick the boots.
What really seemed to upset Vance and Trump was Zelensky campaigning in Pennsylvania for the Democrats and that wasn't, in fairness, the smartest move. Thank goodness none of our parties were stupid enough to send supporters to campaign for Harris.
I agree this was definitely a trigger. In that context it's funny that Starmer got away with Labour's actions. Once again it shows that this was a hatchet job on Z.
Starmer didn't get away with anything Trump and Vance are seriously harsh about Starmer's restricting free speech and the Apple backdoor nonsense
Watch the WHOLE press conference
I take it you're now trying to stay current by abandoning *all* punctuation. Is communication via a series of grunts on the way?
English is the best language in the world. Let's keep it that way.
Comments
@POTUS, Congress, and the American people.
Ukraine needs just and lasting peace, and we are working exactly for that.
https://x.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1895555315716014324
Whether the ceremony will take place in Washington DC or Moscow, it's too early to tell.
Putin's invasion will end either when his army is smashed or when he has destroyed Ukrainian independence. Zelensky being President or not makes no difference.
The way for the war to end is the same way as it's always been - Russia respects the international borders it promised many times to accept and forgets about 19th century fantasies of empire.
Now most of us on here have castigated Starmer for his folly, but as I just said the motives were admirable. Few of the Starmer detractors have questioned the motives of long time Trump fanbois and gurlz like Farage, Johnson, Truss, Mogg, Jenrick ( pick the name of your least favourite right wing nasty bastard).
Either we let Trump and Putin decide Europe's future between them, or we give Ukraine the backing it needs to defeat the invasion.
Neither option is going to be pleasant, but only one offers any long term security.
"That doesn't mean they [security guarantees] can't happen as part of that negotiation, but you have to have an agreement," Rubio said.'
That simply isn't the basis for an end to hostilities. It just gives Russia time to re-arm and re-equip, then restart where they left off.
Doesn't have to be anything special.
Just post a photo of Trump and Vance and invite everyone to describe them in three words!
I don't think we'll ever reach that many posts.
This polarisation has made the US an unreliable and somewhat eccentric partner. The post war consensus on foreign affairs has completely collapsed and we will have a country that it is very difficult to have long term arrangements with until they get it back. This is bigger than a DJT problem and we need to think hard about what to do about it.
Putin is failing, his economy is failing, he can't defeat Ukraine when Ukraine is supported by the West. But he counted upon Trump winning and pulling the rug out from under Zelensky.
However what he didn't count on was that Europe might stand firm even without the USA. If that happens, then Europe combined is far, far, far stronger than Russia is.
Which doesn't mean a united Europe, it means a coalition of willing allies in Europe like Poland, Germany, the UK and more continuing to supply Ukraine with whatever arms she needs to see of the invasion.
What rot
I've just watched the whole thing
Zelensky is a bold brave bastard - or afraid of being offed - or, quite probably, both - but either way Zelensky misreads the room. Yes, he is provoked by stupid questions - the daft query about his suit is absurdly egregious - but Z gets angry - feeling he's not being taken seriously about Putin - and he starts lecturing Vance. J D Vance does NOT start the mano a mano stuff - Zelensky does. Zelensky starts the bickering. Then Zelensky continues his sharp, hectoring tone, and Trump loses his temper like a Mafia don being dissed by an unmade man, and then it all falls apart and all the ill-feeling between them (Hunter Biden, Z supporting the Dems, the sassytempt?) spills out into public viewing
The PB interpretation of this is ridiculous
It means we need to redouble our efforts to see Putin defeated.
It is leverage, which we badly need right now.
Mandelson's odiousness will serve him brilliantly in hinting, subtly enough that Trump is constantly discombobulated, that this or that action by Trump may threaten Charles' ability to schedule the visit at an appropriate time, with appropriate pomp.
Vance can't be in the room every time to manipulate Trump.
We need to play Trump like a fiddle, and the state visit will help us do that.
Watch the WHOLE press conference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pfcy15ZUE2c
And your constant references to PB being hysterical from the most hysterical poster ever just shows how detached from reality you are.
It also shows ,probably, the value of Starner's experience of handling big ego's, in the judicial system.
Zelensky, by contrast, a physically brave but politically unchallenged war leader. His approach didn't work for him with Trump yesterday, and now Starmer has to try and repair the damage on all sides.
- can Europe actually supply Ukraine with the weapons it needs if the US is actively trying to stop this?
- if the US abandons Ukraine does it make nuclear proliferation and nuclear war probable before the end of this century?
There's no state of equilibrium to be reached with Trump, just a constant ferment of impulse and vindictiveness.
The UK probably far less likely.
2. I think you mean by the end of March rather than "before the end of the century"
Because if you have it is obvious I am correct. The first discordant note comes in when some idiot queries Z's lack of a suit - and Zelensky is UNDERSTANDABLY quite annoyed. The trivial disrespect, etc. But this is from a hack not from Trump or Vance, and it's not really important
There is a slight off tone from then on, but - again - nothing disastrous. Later, Vance speaks up about the value of diplomacy, quite eloquently, nothing horrific. As he speaks, Vance addresses the room, the hacks, not Z. But Z seems to get ired by this and then he intervenes and directly speaks to Vance and Z uses a really spiky, prissy tone of voice, like Vance knows fuck all (maybe that's true, but the tone is not helpful) and then, even tho you can sense the discomfort rising - Z continues with this foolish lecturing - and THEN Trump loses his shit
And then it is all an out-take from Goodfellas
I admire Zelensky, I reckon he's a genuine hero, albeit flawed, but he foolishly poked a deeply erratic president and also patronised a very bright, self consciously newbie vice president, in one five minute spell of geostrategic calamitofuck
Also, I don't think it will really matter that much
At least in his TV interviews Zelenskyy is more diplomatic and constructive about trying to rebuild the relationship.
Zelenskyy was not diplomatic, as the govt stated last night. He made mistakes in the meeting, from a purely strategic point of view. He started the beef with Vance. He lost his temper.
But you're missing the big picture - he would have been selling Ukraine down the river if he hadn't stated his red lines on signing the minerals extortion crap. He would have been making a far bigger strategic mistake if he had gone into the private part of the meeting without any public commitments to security guarantees. He would have allowed Trump to define the narrative.
Z was the very definition of being backed into a corner. I can't see how he could have achieved a better outcome for Ukraine by any other actions.
Smith's selection has always been a mystery. He's a moderate bat, and poor wicketkeeper.
Does he bowl?
But, people need to watch around the 40 minute mark. The entire body language of the three changes when Vance gets involved.
That's something we need to sort out quickly.
The new US is both isolationist, in terms of its existing alliances, and keen to restore economic relations with Europe's adversaries.
As yesterday's event show, it has little or no compunction in pulling the rug from under us over nothing more than a perceived slight.
That's no basis for our future security, however much we want to maintain a good relationship with them.
In any event, our reducing dependence on the US is something which would be more likely to please Trump than offended him.
F1 Testing, including some car design news, Monaco pit stop news, and Verstappen to Aston Martin rumour, plus how I think things stand. Luckily, most (not all) of my early predictions are looking reasonable.
Podbean: https://undercutters.podbean.com/e/f1-testing-2025/
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/6ZutfOdyGc0nK6qRj7oTIq
Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/bcfe213b-55fb-408a-a823-dc6693ee9f78/episodes/46c88884-704e-4375-a8ed-498c9fcb66ff/undercutters---f1-podcast-f1-testing-2025
Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/f1-testing-2025/id1786574257?i=1000696951781
Transcript: https://morrisf1.blogspot.com/2025/03/f1-testing-2025-undercutters-ep10.html
Important note: the odds have already shifted. Piastri's out to 13 for the title at Ladbrokes, 14 with boost, which is too long given he can be backed each way at a fifth the odds for top 3. He can also be hedged at 12 on Betfair.
NEW THREAD
This is the basics of diplomacy - if you have a 4 year old at home, or work with teenagers, you'd get this instinctively.
That we have to do this with the leader of the free world (ha!) is incredibly depressing, but it doesn't make it not true.
After about 30 mins the meeting which has been largely cordial is wrapping up. Vance makes a point targeted against Biden. Says Biden’s chest thumping didn’t stop Putin invading Ukraine. Vance says Trump has the answers - diplomacy (= dialogue) and dealing with Putin.
Z addresses Vance somewhat confrontationally. Makes the point that dealing with Putin doesn’t work. A deal was struck with Putin in 2022 and Putin went back on the deal. Z concludes to V “JD what kind of diplomacy you are speaking about? What do you mean?”
Vance is riled. He feels challenged by Z who is effectively saying Vance is wrong. Diplomacy doesn’t work with Putin.
Vance loses his cool. He is angry that Z has publicly disagreed with his one significant contribution to the meeting, challenging him in front of the whole world. He finds it disrespectful and petulantly reacts saying Zelensky is ungrateful. He raises his voice, points his finger, accuses Z of criticising America, says Ukraine is struggling in its war effort and calls Z disrespectful.
Z does not accept Vance’s portrayal of Ukraine struggling. Warns America that Putin could come for them next and that they will feel the influence (threat) of Russia
Trump - triggered initially by Vance saying Z is disrespecting America is further triggered by Z telling America what it feels and it all kicks off.
Vance pours oil onto the fire challenging Z by asking him if he has even thanked America for its help. Takes him to task for “campaigning for the Democrats in Pennsylvania”
It then further escalates.
Conclusion. Z was perhaps unwise to publicly challenge Vance’s “diplomacy thesis”. Vance felt belittled by this and reacted calling Z disrespectful and ungrateful. Trump was triggered by Vance and further triggered by Z forecasting America would in the future also fell threatened by Russia. Trump and Vance both lose it.
And it is all based on a deliberately skewed edit, of the last ten minutes, which - out of context - does look like an attempt to ambush Z, if not bully him
But seen in context it is Zelensky that fucks up the most, and anyway all this stuff about "NATO being dead" and "today the world changed" is histrionic nonsense. Trump explicitly commits to NATO earlier on, as long as the Europeans pay more, plus ca change
As for your wider point, maybe....
Very hard to predict from here, but my guess is Z - or more likely a new Ukrainian leader? - will sign some kind of deal and the war will end, and this will be regarded as a weird outbreak of Scorsese amidst the Tarkovsky
We gave early - which was critical to Ukraine’s survival - and we rallied others to their course. Those two actions alone put us in the top rank
We gave early - which was critical to Ukraine’s survival - and we rallied others to their course. Those two actions alone put us in the top rank
Zelensky risks a lot by throwing into doubt any notion of a negotiaton with Putin. Vance then inexperiencedly feels he has to defend both his own idea of diplomacy,, and Trump's dignity, and also do that in a very public, "new politics" way. I doubt that the result afterwards is what he wanted.
It may be that Starmer is following the same play book (I’m not close enough to him to know his private worries)
* Mission-specific parameters from the F35b aircraft on the carriers have to be uploaded from an American facility
* The Apache helicopters were hangar-bound for ages due to software problems(?) but I think it's sorted now
Those are the biggies. We also have American large reconnaissance "Rivet Joint" aircraft and heavy-lift Chinook helicopters and heavy-lift C17 Globemasters but I don't know how much external permission they need.
Other than that (!) I think we're ok. UK war materiel in terms of aircraft, ships, tanks, etc has been mostly homegrown or European since the 70s and Brexit hasn't yet dented that.
(The above is from memory since I am on the tablet visiting relatives and may be wrong. I can't remember if we have MLRS. I don't remember if we source our ammo and artillery shells from the States. There may be other omissions/errors)
In general I think quiet or loud appeasement of toddlers, teenagers and thin skinned tyrants doesn’t tend to end well, but at least the former can evolve and grow up, the latter don’t.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xOgu9eoUsfo&pp=ygUTSGFpbHNoYW0gbm9zZW5pZ2h0IA==
I was always very fond of Lord H.
Even Fox is saying the real reason for the breakdown is that Ukraine wasn't offered any security guarantees and - as Z had said clearly before the visit - they wouldn't sign without some guarantee against future invasion. Whereas Trump had everything set up for a signing ceremony and expected to bounce Z into the deal.
It is credible that the real reason for the public breakdown unfolded out of view.
Here is an FT piece about a group of Republicans coming to the UK in 2015 to help the Tories campaign in marginal seats. This is just normal, and has been so since the time of Mrs Thatcher, and perhaps earlier (I wasn't around).
https://www.ft.com/content/48d94f08-e82b-11e4-9960-00144feab7de
The President of Ukraine visiting a US Munitions plant with a representative of the US Govt to thank the workers for making shells for his country is actually exactly what Vance was demanding, ie gratitude. The issue is perhaps the Vance fantasises about the state as politicised against him. Leaving aside that Vance's demands about "have you thanked us" are nonsense, the USA already having been thanked again at the start of the meeting. I say Vance's upset is entirely tactical.
The free speech stuff is weird. The examples in Vance's Munich speech were fabrications - whether because he's manipulating or because he's ignorant I cannot tell. "Facebook poster jailed for hurty words" claims I have seen have almost all been for far more serious offences, such as calling for hotels full of brown people to be burnt down with the brown people still in them. That's an attempted wedge issue by elements on the Right of our politics.
It's all mainly Trump & Vance reacting to images they have projected on the inside of their own heads, or a deliberate political tactic. Vance gets seriously harsh when anyone refuses to kneel down and lick the boots.