In a tense and revealing White House meeting, President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance confronted Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky over his approach to the ongoing war, urging him to show gratitude instead of pressing demands.
Vance, unimpressed with Zelensky’s tone, called him out directly: “Have you said thank you once this entire meeting?” He criticised the Ukrainian leader for coming into the Oval Office and “forcing conscripts to the front lines because you have manpower problems.”
Zelensky attempted to push back, questioning whether Vance had ever been to Ukraine. But Vance was unrelenting, accusing him of bringing people on “propaganda tours” and challenging him on Ukraine’s struggles to recruit soldiers. “Do you think it’s respectful to come to the Oval Office of the United States of America and attack the administration that is trying to prevent the destruction of your country?” Vance asked.
Trump was equally direct, dismissing Zelensky’s warnings that the U.S. would eventually feel the impact of the war. “Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel. We’re trying to solve a problem,” Trump snapped. When Zelensky insisted he was merely answering questions, Trump cut him off: “You’re in no position to dictate that, remember that.”
Trump then called out Ukraine’s weak position in the conflict. “You’re right now not in a very good position. You’ve allowed yourself to be in a very bad position,” he stated. As Zelensky objected that he wasn’t playing political games, Trump hit back: “Yeah, you’re playing cards. You’re gambling with the lives of millions of people. You’re gambling with World War III.”
Vance further pressed Zelensky, reminding him of his past political interference in U.S. elections. “You went to Pennsylvania and campaigned for the opposition in October. Offer some words of appreciation for the United States of America and the president who’s trying to save your country.” Zelensky feebly complained about Vance’s tone, but Trump dismissed the complaint outright.
As negotiations continued, Trump made it clear that Zelensky’s leverage was limited. “Your country is in big trouble,” he said bluntly, reinforcing that the path to peace required Ukraine to accept hard realities rather than making demands.
The meeting underscored Trump’s determination to bring the war to an end, pushing for a peace deal that would grant the U.S. access to Ukraine’s mineral resources in exchange for the aid it has received. With Trump working on a trilateral agreement involving Russia, Ukraine, and the U.S., he made it clear that this would be a tough negotiation, not a “love match.”
Zelensky left Washington without securing additional commitments, instead facing sharp criticism for his lack of gratitude and failure to recognise the reality of Ukraine’s situation.
Click to view video
Click to view video
Daily Telegraph New Zealand (DTNZ) is an independent news website, first published in October 2021. - where this article was sourced.
Zelensky attempted to push back, questioning whether Vance had ever been to Ukraine. But Vance was unrelenting, accusing him of bringing people on “propaganda tours” and challenging him on Ukraine’s struggles to recruit soldiers. “Do you think it’s respectful to come to the Oval Office of the United States of America and attack the administration that is trying to prevent the destruction of your country?” Vance asked.
Trump was equally direct, dismissing Zelensky’s warnings that the U.S. would eventually feel the impact of the war. “Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel. We’re trying to solve a problem,” Trump snapped. When Zelensky insisted he was merely answering questions, Trump cut him off: “You’re in no position to dictate that, remember that.”
Trump then called out Ukraine’s weak position in the conflict. “You’re right now not in a very good position. You’ve allowed yourself to be in a very bad position,” he stated. As Zelensky objected that he wasn’t playing political games, Trump hit back: “Yeah, you’re playing cards. You’re gambling with the lives of millions of people. You’re gambling with World War III.”
Vance further pressed Zelensky, reminding him of his past political interference in U.S. elections. “You went to Pennsylvania and campaigned for the opposition in October. Offer some words of appreciation for the United States of America and the president who’s trying to save your country.” Zelensky feebly complained about Vance’s tone, but Trump dismissed the complaint outright.
As negotiations continued, Trump made it clear that Zelensky’s leverage was limited. “Your country is in big trouble,” he said bluntly, reinforcing that the path to peace required Ukraine to accept hard realities rather than making demands.
The meeting underscored Trump’s determination to bring the war to an end, pushing for a peace deal that would grant the U.S. access to Ukraine’s mineral resources in exchange for the aid it has received. With Trump working on a trilateral agreement involving Russia, Ukraine, and the U.S., he made it clear that this would be a tough negotiation, not a “love match.”
Zelensky left Washington without securing additional commitments, instead facing sharp criticism for his lack of gratitude and failure to recognise the reality of Ukraine’s situation.
Click to view video
Click to view video
Daily Telegraph New Zealand (DTNZ) is an independent news website, first published in October 2021. - where this article was sourced.
23 comments:
And as usual the rest of the world does not hear the sense of what they said and pledge their support for the sinking ship.
As a US citizen, I’m still in shock by the utterly despicable performance of Trump and Vance. I never thought I’d see the President of the US behave this way. The only winner here is Russia. It’s a shame DTNZ is so willing to take Russia’s side in this conflict.
It was good to see. I want a Prime Minister who is as assertive with respect of New Zealand's interests. I have had quite enough of woke White weaklings. I am toying of voting for the Maori Party.
Vance's lie about Zelensky's lack of gratitude was promptly rebutted by CNN who published a list of 33 examples of Zelensky thanking or expressing gratitude to the United States, its officials or its people for their support since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022.
Trump is supporting an evil dictator. Where was the US in WWII? They did not get involved until they were attacked. NZ supported the US when they started wars. What is wrong with the US that they could not come up with better candidates than Trump or Biden?
A deluded, pretentious little man with an immense ego to which the lives of millions are being sacrificed.
No, it's not Trump I'm talking about here............
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova described Trump’s reprimand of Zelensky at the White House as a “sobering dressing-down” unprecedented in international politics and diplomacy. She asserted that this incident also highlights the “political weakness and profound moral degradation” of Western leaders who continue to back Zelensky, whom she characterized as “insane” and disconnected from reality.
Did you hear that Luxon?
And Putin isn't a pretentious little man with an immense ego, Barend, or is that who you mean? If not, don't forget who invaded who.
Putin is a seasoned statesman, not a comedian who needs reminding that he is now supposed to be a statesman and should behave accordingly.
Who invaded whom needs to be prefaced with 'who acted in an increasingly threatening manner towards Russia to the point where Moscow had little choice but to take forward defensive action'.
Putin is an ex-KGB thug and of course Russia needs all the apologists it can get.
So apparently being a "seasoned statesman" is all the excuse you need to be a paranoid murdering dictator these days. That puts Putin up there with quite a few well known historical figures. If that is Barend V's benchmark for geo-political success I guess we had better keep a close eye on Winston Peters. We will be invading the Cook Islands before you can say Rarotonga sucks. And don't underestimate actors Barend. The last Russian Empire fell on Ronald Reagan's watch. I don't recall him asking Europe for his money back.
"Paranoid murdering dictator"? When people start using language like that with respect to someone they don't like, you just know they've run out of intellectually and ethically tenable arguments. Now I wonder whether Winston will be flattered or offended by being likened to Putin?
If you want to discuss Russia/Ukraine with me, you keep a civil tongue in your head and forget about the rather puerile smear campaign.
And which part of "paranoid murdering dictator" do you take issue with.
I suggest ""paranoid" is quite apt if Putin really believes that NATO is a threat to Russia when the whole world knows it is a DEFENSIVE alliance that wouldn't be necessary if Russia had behaved in a civilised manner after WW2. And if he does't believe that, why does he say it? It's not as if he needs to play to his base any more. Perhaps he's just lying.
"Murdering" is entirely appropriate to describe Putin's relentless deliberate targeting of defenseless Ukranian women and children with his missiles. He has responsibility for bombing maternity hospitals and public buildings clearly marked as civilian shelters. He is a murderer. And that's before considering the fate of his political opponents that have difficulty with open windows on the third floor or mysteriously die in the Gulag.
And as for "dictator", if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck ... well you know the rest.
So enough of the righteous indignation Barend. You are just embarrassing yourself in the face of history.
Well, Barend, how many does one have to have 'terminated' before such a descriptor would apply? Methinks you have perhaps been living in a protected subterranean environment, or otherwise deliberately turning a blind eye to all the 'coincidences' that have followed and advanced said 'seasoned stateman's' career?
One thing I have learned from my many years in developing countries is that it is naive to compare a real situation or person with an ideal one as this involves a false dichotomy. It is invariably a matter of choosing not between good and bad but between bad and worse. While living ion the Levant during the ISIS crisis I often said to people, "You have a choice between Al-Assad and al-Baghdadi. Choose wisely."
When Assad was deposed I was very worried about Syria going the same way as Libya and Yemen. I am cautiously optimistic now that Moscow is taking such a live interest in Syria.
Here we have a country with more nukes than anyone else collapsing into a heap in 1991. Stability through a firm hand was needed or it would be horrendous to think where we would be now (if indeed anywhere). I say thank goodness for Putin as I said thank goodness for al-Assad 10 years ago.
The 'righteous indignation' is the preserve of those who view these situations through a naive absolutist monochromatic lens. Get an in-depth understanding of the situation in full context and abandon the simplicisms.
As for NATO, the fact of the matter is that Russia regards it as an encroaching threat clawing away at Russia's borders. That is their perception and there is good reason for it. I think a strong case can be made for the accursed Yank using NATO to try to goad Russia into a showdown on European soil ('defensive alliance' my arse - such alliances do not expand right up against the other party's borders and invite its immediate members to join the gang). Again, the perception is a very strong one and explains the reaction to it. This is not lab science where we can go back to square 1, change one variable, and press the rerun button. We must act as see fit based on the way we perceive things. NATO is in deep trouble because of Turkey's posturing in the Levant alongside Russia. Her expulsion from NATO (already seriously discussed last year) might be the beginning of the end. I hope it is.
You believe you are right and I think I am. Let's see what happens.
You're way on the wrong side of history here, Barend. Ukraine has been brutely invaded by Putin, utterly without justification. The fair-minded world is squarely on the side of the brave Zelensky and the Ukranian people. NATO is a defensive alliance that has kept European's peace since 1949, and, with U S involvement, under Trump now unlikely, in fact, virtually working for Putin and planning to loot Ukraine's minerals, the outlook for a just settlement looks very unlikely.
Ewan, recall the 1962 Cuban missile crisis - a hostile foreign power moving offensive armaments into the territory of a near-by nation that isn't exactly US-friendly - and the Yanks' response: remove them or we start WW3.
That's fine, you say. Now make some substitutions - a foreign alliance hostile to Russia expands its sphere of influence right up to Russia's borders and Russia takes action, and you say that's not fine. "Utterly without justification" places you, not me, on the wrong wide of history.
The prospects of a just settlement depend on this becoming a European matter. Take the Yanks and their instrument of manipulation NATO out and prospects for a peaceful settlement increase by at least one order of magnitude.
“That’s fine, you say”. No, I didn’t. Yes Barend, I recall the Cuban Missile Crisis well - I was at boarding school. It was a worrying time indeed, for the world, at the most fridged period of the Cold War. It has no relationship to this Ukrainian situation.
Then The USSR placed nuclear missiles on Cuba, well within range of a large portion of the United States. In the crisis President Kennedy was under pressure from his military advisors to bomb the sites. Instead, he settled on blockading Cuba. Khrushchev ordered his ships to turn around - the crisis was averted. Kennedy responded by removing missiles from Turkey. There would be no WW3. Not a shot was fired. No one was killed. No buildings and homes destroyed. It’s absurd to compare that with the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by Putin, and the bullying of Trump. What a contrast to the diplomacy of Kennedy, a man I have great respect for, murdered in the service of his country.
Ukraine’s crime, it seems to you, is for it to merely indicate that it was going to apply to join NATO. This, as a sovereign country, it was, and is, entitled to do, whether bordering Russia, or not. At the time Finland, with 1,300 kms of border with Russia, had actually applied for membership, and has since joined, along with Sweden. As well, two Baltic states bordering Russia have been NATO members for years. NATO is a defensive body, pure and simple. It has never gone to war, just acted as deterrent to the USSR and now Russian expansion by force.
Yep, Barend. On this one it is you who is on the wrong side of history, as is Trump.
If you were at boarding school in 1962, you'll recall the Bag of Pigs fiasco as well - an attempt to invade Cuba.
The parallel between the two situations is that we have a close neighbour allying itself militarily with a hostile alliance. The US won't wear that and neither will Russia.
To understand the Russian view of NATO, see my 2017 (4 Feb) article in these annals "Are we better off with or without NATO?" It remains topical. The map representing the Russian perception of NATO is particularly informative.
Another flawed, if not entirely irrelevant, comparison. The Bag (as you call it, possibly a typo) of Pigs fiasco has no similarity to Ukraine. Ukraine is no more threat to Russia than Poland was to Germany in 1939 - now there's a more pertinent comparison!
Blame the keyboard, the 'g' and 'y' are so close together :).
As for Poland in 1939, let's not forget the ethnic cleansing and persecution the Poles were subjecting the German population to.
Ukraine isn't the threat to Russia, NATO is and Ukraine wants to be in NATO.
You can claim as often as you like that NATO is a defensive organisation but Moscow does not see it that way and what matters here is perceptions.
Yep, no doubt about it; those nasty Pols were tormenting the Third Reich in 1939. They deserved all they got. You're a whole-hearted supporter of Mr Putin. Well, good for you, mate.
Ukraine has been naive, they should never have let Russia have it's nukes back. The 1994 Budapest agreement and 2014 Minsk protocol should have guaranteed it's security. Russia signed them both and it has broken both and the other signatories have stood by and told Russia they shouldn't do that. Naughty!
Who needs enemies when you have friends like these.
Putin won't stop until he is stopped
Post a Comment