The meeting between Presidents Trump and Zelensky did not go as expected. Depending on your point of view it could be said Trump came across as a bully, that Zelensky gave as good as he got and the fact that the meeting didn’t go well was the fault of one or the other.
It could be said I have a foot in both camps and for this reason – I am not a great supporter of Trump’s views on this issue as it is unfair to say Zelensky started the war and should therefore have done a deal to end it. There is no way in the world Zelensky could do a deal with an aggressor who wants to go beyond Ukraine. Putin’s end game is to put the USSR back together again.
However, although Ukraine’s troops have achieved more than most thought possible, against a much more powerful enemy, they could not have done so without the support of the West. We are talking in particular about the US, the UK and Europe plus contributions from other nations. The chances of Ukraine winning the war without boots on the ground from the aforementioned countries are very slim.
This is where the rubber hits the road. America has been burnt before by engaging in conflicts – Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan are examples – and Trump has no desire to add another one to the list. So then there’s the counter argument: are you just going to let Putin win the war in the sense that he gets those parts of Ukraine he has already conquered? The answer to that is probably yes.
The next part of the discussion then is: won’t this just give Putin the opportunity to restart the war once Trump has left the Oval Office. Quite possibly, but I’m picking the next president of the United States will be JD Vance with possibly Tulsi Gabbard as vice president. Vance is on exactly the same page as Trump (as evidenced in the meeting) and Gabbard comes from 20 years as a senate member of the Democrat Party and is well qualified to brand them a party of warmongers, which they are.
Here, reality bites: Ukraine’s less-than-even chance of winning the war. The only way this war will end in the near future is through a peace-making mechanism. That sort of language is not part of Trump’s vocabulary. He is a deal maker. His whole life has revolved around doing deals and this brings us to the volatile meeting between Trump and Zelensky. Zelensky was not prepared to accept Trump’s perspective on the matter but this is a no go if he really wants to end the war quickly. So does Zelensky really want it to end? Reality says all that will happen if it continues is more lives will be lost. This is not acceptable to Trump.
I have to agree with him. How good that is for either side will be in the fine print. No doubt it will favour Putin, but you can bet it will come with a warning that he had better not try it again because the next president will be in the same mould. Putin, and for that matter Iran, all stayed in their little hidey holes when Trump was last in power, which gives credence to Trump’s claim that had he remained president the wars would never have started.
Strong-armed people like Putin need to be met with strong leadership from the other side and be left in no doubt what the consequences of a repeat performance will be. This, under the circumstances, is the best way Ukraine can be supported by America. Stop the war, put boots on the ground and provide money to help with the rebuild of the country. Zelensky finds this hard to accept: often the truth is.
This is the reality Trump was trying to give him in the meeting. It might have looked like a David and Goliath moment, which is how the left-wing media painted it. However, as the election result showed, the media certainly do not represent the American people, while Trump definitely does. It was unfortunate Zelensky came with the intention of trying to persuade Trump to his point of view, which does not solve the problem.
Trump was talking to Zelensky in a way that was in the best interests of both Zelensky and the American people. Zelensky, through not being able to face reality, left in a worse position than when he arrived. There will now be no money and possibly no armaments from America to help him. Trump will see to that. The deal would have seen America and Ukraine in a business partnership involving digging up Ukraine’s minerals.
Lindsey Graham, an American senator who knows Zelensky well, fears the situation may be irretrievable. In his view Trump gave a masterclass on how to stand up for America. America has done more than anybody in terms of money and equipment to help Zelensky fight this war and I think this is part of the problem as Trump sees it. Every time it is America that steps up to be the leader in these situations and Trump is tired of the fact that the rest of the world regards his country as the global policeman.
This is what he is asking of NATO: do your fair share. Nobody wants World War III, but while these wars go on we are edging ever closer to it. Trump is not in the business of starting wars: he wants to end them. You have to balance outcomes with reality and that is precisely what Trump is trying to do.
Trump is a businessman, not a politician and is taking a business-like approach to solving a problem. He is trying to engineer a solution where everyone is, to some degree, a winner. Putin gets to keep the land grab (I’m not happy about this, but needs must), Zelensky gets manpower and financial aid to help in the rebuild (as happened with Japan after WWII) and Trump gets his investment in the war repaid through the minerals partnership.
If only Luxon could think like this. In order to solve a problem, you have to sometimes accept things you would rather not – LIKE SUPPORTING SEYMOUR’S TREATY BILL!
JC is a right-wing crusader. Reached an age that embodies the dictum only the good die young. This article was first published HERE
However, although Ukraine’s troops have achieved more than most thought possible, against a much more powerful enemy, they could not have done so without the support of the West. We are talking in particular about the US, the UK and Europe plus contributions from other nations. The chances of Ukraine winning the war without boots on the ground from the aforementioned countries are very slim.
This is where the rubber hits the road. America has been burnt before by engaging in conflicts – Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan are examples – and Trump has no desire to add another one to the list. So then there’s the counter argument: are you just going to let Putin win the war in the sense that he gets those parts of Ukraine he has already conquered? The answer to that is probably yes.
The next part of the discussion then is: won’t this just give Putin the opportunity to restart the war once Trump has left the Oval Office. Quite possibly, but I’m picking the next president of the United States will be JD Vance with possibly Tulsi Gabbard as vice president. Vance is on exactly the same page as Trump (as evidenced in the meeting) and Gabbard comes from 20 years as a senate member of the Democrat Party and is well qualified to brand them a party of warmongers, which they are.
Here, reality bites: Ukraine’s less-than-even chance of winning the war. The only way this war will end in the near future is through a peace-making mechanism. That sort of language is not part of Trump’s vocabulary. He is a deal maker. His whole life has revolved around doing deals and this brings us to the volatile meeting between Trump and Zelensky. Zelensky was not prepared to accept Trump’s perspective on the matter but this is a no go if he really wants to end the war quickly. So does Zelensky really want it to end? Reality says all that will happen if it continues is more lives will be lost. This is not acceptable to Trump.
I have to agree with him. How good that is for either side will be in the fine print. No doubt it will favour Putin, but you can bet it will come with a warning that he had better not try it again because the next president will be in the same mould. Putin, and for that matter Iran, all stayed in their little hidey holes when Trump was last in power, which gives credence to Trump’s claim that had he remained president the wars would never have started.
Strong-armed people like Putin need to be met with strong leadership from the other side and be left in no doubt what the consequences of a repeat performance will be. This, under the circumstances, is the best way Ukraine can be supported by America. Stop the war, put boots on the ground and provide money to help with the rebuild of the country. Zelensky finds this hard to accept: often the truth is.
This is the reality Trump was trying to give him in the meeting. It might have looked like a David and Goliath moment, which is how the left-wing media painted it. However, as the election result showed, the media certainly do not represent the American people, while Trump definitely does. It was unfortunate Zelensky came with the intention of trying to persuade Trump to his point of view, which does not solve the problem.
Trump was talking to Zelensky in a way that was in the best interests of both Zelensky and the American people. Zelensky, through not being able to face reality, left in a worse position than when he arrived. There will now be no money and possibly no armaments from America to help him. Trump will see to that. The deal would have seen America and Ukraine in a business partnership involving digging up Ukraine’s minerals.
Lindsey Graham, an American senator who knows Zelensky well, fears the situation may be irretrievable. In his view Trump gave a masterclass on how to stand up for America. America has done more than anybody in terms of money and equipment to help Zelensky fight this war and I think this is part of the problem as Trump sees it. Every time it is America that steps up to be the leader in these situations and Trump is tired of the fact that the rest of the world regards his country as the global policeman.
This is what he is asking of NATO: do your fair share. Nobody wants World War III, but while these wars go on we are edging ever closer to it. Trump is not in the business of starting wars: he wants to end them. You have to balance outcomes with reality and that is precisely what Trump is trying to do.
Trump is a businessman, not a politician and is taking a business-like approach to solving a problem. He is trying to engineer a solution where everyone is, to some degree, a winner. Putin gets to keep the land grab (I’m not happy about this, but needs must), Zelensky gets manpower and financial aid to help in the rebuild (as happened with Japan after WWII) and Trump gets his investment in the war repaid through the minerals partnership.
If only Luxon could think like this. In order to solve a problem, you have to sometimes accept things you would rather not – LIKE SUPPORTING SEYMOUR’S TREATY BILL!
JC is a right-wing crusader. Reached an age that embodies the dictum only the good die young. This article was first published HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment