O/T:- Trump Presidency 2.0 [hic sunt dracones]

[jackal2]

It's not often you'll hear me praising Sir Keir Starmer, but I thought he played a weak hand very well yesterday and the positive public dialogue between him and Trump reflected that, perhaps only further emphasised by today's very different outcome.

[SmiffyPie]

Mr Putin would have been rubbing his hands together and laughing his socks off.

[JoePass]

Mr Putin would have been rubbing his hands together and laughing his socks off.

Are you ok now with putting British troops on the ground in Ukraine ?

[drillerpie]

Anybody seen the Oval Office live meeting with Zelensky just now?

Absolutely incredible. Trump and Vance are despicable people and the USA should be thoroughly ashamed.

Seemed like an ambush to me, from Vance's pre rehearsed attack to the journo (guessing from a MAGA affiliated organisation) hassling Zelensky about not wearing a suit and getting a wink from Trump.

As much as I admire Zelensky for refusing to eat his balls on world television, I'm not sure that was the best move for his country though. Hoping UK and EU can step up.

[Elite_Pie]

It's pretty clear what the new rules are under Trump - kiss my arse and I'll be your friend, refuse to kiss my arse and I'm your enemy. Shamefully, the UK government and the UK monarchy have decided to kiss his arse. Trump is the typical school bully, I've got more money than you so do as I say or I'll crush you. A united Europe might be the only thing big enough to stand up to his bullying, but 52% of us decided we didn't want to be part of a united Europe. I always thought Brexit was a really bad idea, but I never thought it would get this bad.

[BigFatPie]

It's not often you'll hear me praising Sir Keir Starmer, but I thought he played a weak hand very well yesterday and the positive public dialogue between him and Trump reflected that, perhaps only further emphasised by today's very different outcome.

A right leaning mate of mine said this pretty much word for word to me earlier on and as I said to him fair play cos Im not sure Id be so generous of spirit if Starmer had been a Tory politician.

Events today show that both what a loathsome individual Trump is and how dealing with him is a diplomatic nightmare because what happens one day has nothing to do with what happens the next. I always wondered what Zelenskyy was going to be walking into today.

Starmers going to have to pick a side otherwise that letter he was waving yesterday is going to look like Chamberlains peace in our time in 1938.

[magpie_mania]

It's pretty clear what the new rules are under Trump - kiss my arse and I'll be your friend, refuse to kiss my arse and I'm your enemy. Shamefully, the UK government and the UK monarchy have decided to kiss his arse. Trump is the typical school bully, I've got more money than you so do as I say or I'll crush you. A united Europe might be the only thing big enough to stand up to his bullying, but 52% of us decided we didn't want to be part of a united Europe. I always thought Brexit was a really bad idea, but I never thought it would get this bad.

Your thoughts are about the same as mine - Trump came over as a bully with Vance no better.

At least last time Mike Pence I thought was a credible VP and may have reined Trump in a bit.

The President, who watched and encouraged his supporters when they marched on the Capitol in 2021 accusing Zelensky of disrespecting the US was incredible.

[jackal2]

For those with the time it's not uninteresting to watch the whole meeting in its full context rather than the selected edits in the media.

It seems to me that the first 35 minutes go fairly cordially overall, with Trump and Zelensky agreeing on quite a bit, or at worst politely downplaying any points of disagreement, but the mood is still very much 'deal on'.

Then there's a question from CNN, who Trump hates, and it goes as you would expect between Trump and their reporter, but frankly even that doesn't really have any consequence.

Then there's a question asking why Trump is willing to align/negotiate with Putin, to which Trump replies that if he didn't align himself with both sides then he couldn't negotiate and there would never be deal. He adds: "I'm not aligned with Putin, I'm not aligned with anybody, I'm aligned with the USA" (which in a way harks back to my earlier post and the "Whose side are you are on?" question, to which Trump's answer would be "Neither, mine!")

Vance then doubles down and says Biden's chest thumping and refusal to talk to Russia achieved nothing and the only way to solve the problem is diplomacy. Zelensky then makes a point about nobody stopping the invasion of Ukraine in 2014 (when Obama was President) and previous attempted diplomacy including Merkel and Macron in 2019 failing, which isn't an unreasonable point. However, by not leaving it there on an 'agree to disagree' level, and instead challenging Vance to explain what kind of diplomacy he means, it creates an obvious shift in the mood. Vance then replies it's disrespectful to come into the Oval Office and try to litigate the issue in front of the media, and then everything pretty much falls apart.

I think if that had been Starmer wishing to make the point about diplomacy - with his legal background - he would have left the argument hanging in abstract, rather than directing it back to Vance as a public challenge. If you're playing with a weak hand to start with, discretion is probably the better part of valour. I think Starmer understood that yesterday, knew the stakes, and played his hand well, whereas Zelesny didn't quite read the room as well in that moment, provoking Vance. Trump and Vance didn't need to react as strongly as they did, but frankly they do hold "the cards" so they're not really bothered if people (outside of their own supporters) like it or not.

On a more positive note, it wouldn't surprise me if the deal gets resurrected when everyone has calmed down, because there's still something in it for all parties, especially Trump, who I'm sure still wants the deal but only on his terms. Full video here for those interested:

[M0ufMk3]

For those with the time it's not uninteresting to watch the whole meeting in its full context rather than the selected edits in the media.

It seems to me that the first 35 minutes go fairly cordially overall, with Trump and Zelensky agreeing on quite a bit, or at worst politely downplaying any points of disagreement, but the mood is still very much 'deal on'.

Then there's a question from CNN, who Trump hates, and it goes as you would expect between Trump and their reporter, but frankly even that doesn't really have any consequence.

Then there's a question asking why Trump is willing to align/negotiate with Putin, to which Trump replies that if he didn't align himself with both sides then he couldn't negotiate and there would never be deal. He adds: "I'm not aligned with Putin, I'm not aligned with anybody, I'm aligned with the USA" (which in a way harks back to my earlier post and the "Whose side are you are on?" question, to which Trump's answer would be "Neither, mine!")

Vance then doubles down and says Biden's chest thumping and refusal to talk to Russia achieved nothing and the only way to solve the problem is diplomacy. Zelensky then makes a point about nobody stopping the invasion of Ukraine in 2014 (when Obama was President) and previous attempted diplomacy including Merkel and Macron in 2019 failing, which isn't an unreasonable point. However, by not leaving it there on an 'agree to disagree' level, and instead challenging Vance to explain what kind of diplomacy he means, it creates an obvious shift in the mood. Vance then replies it's disrespectful to come into the Oval Office and try to litigate the issue in front of the media, and then everything pretty much falls apart.

I think if that had been Starmer wishing to make the point about diplomacy - with his legal background - he would have left the argument hanging in abstract, rather than directing it back to Vance as a public challenge. If you're playing with a weak hand to start with, discretion is probably the better part of valour. I think Starmer understood that yesterday, knew the stakes, and played his hand well, whereas Zelesny didn't quite read the room as well in that moment, provoking Vance. Trump and Vance didn't need to react as strongly as they did, but frankly they do hold "the cards" so they're not really bothered if people (outside of their own supporters) like it or not.

On a more positive note, it wouldn't surprise me if the deal gets resurrected when everyone has calmed down, because there's still something in it for all parties, especially Trump, who I'm sure still wants the deal but only on his terms. Full video here for those interested:

I'd agree with much of that, but the decline into acrimony did seem like a bit of a set up instigated by mini-Trump (Vance). I agree that the deal will probably end up being resurrected but with Ukraine in a significantly position of greater weakness.

[BigFatPie]

For those with the time it's not uninteresting to watch the whole meeting in its full context rather than the selected edits in the media.

It seems to me that the first 35 minutes go fairly cordially overall, with Trump and Zelensky agreeing on quite a bit, or at worst politely downplaying any points of disagreement, but the mood is still very much 'deal on'.

Then there's a question from CNN, who Trump hates, and it goes as you would expect between Trump and their reporter, but frankly even that doesn't really have any consequence.

Then there's a question asking why Trump is willing to align/negotiate with Putin, to which Trump replies that if he didn't align himself with both sides then he couldn't negotiate and there would never be deal. He adds: "I'm not aligned with Putin, I'm not aligned with anybody, I'm aligned with the USA" (which in a way harks back to my earlier post and the "Whose side are you are on?" question, to which Trump's answer would be "Neither, mine!")

Vance then doubles down and says Biden's chest thumping and refusal to talk to Russia achieved nothing and the only way to solve the problem is diplomacy. Zelensky then makes a point about nobody stopping the invasion of Ukraine in 2014 (when Obama was President) and previous attempted diplomacy including Merkel and Macron in 2019 failing, which isn't an unreasonable point. However, by not leaving it there on an 'agree to disagree' level, and instead challenging Vance to explain what kind of diplomacy he means, it creates an obvious shift in the mood. Vance then replies it's disrespectful to come into the Oval Office and try to litigate the issue in front of the media, and then everything pretty much falls apart.

I think if that had been Starmer wishing to make the point about diplomacy - with his legal background - he would have left the argument hanging in abstract, rather than directing it back to Vance as a public challenge. If you're playing with a weak hand to start with, discretion is probably the better part of valour. I think Starmer understood that yesterday, knew the stakes, and played his hand well, whereas Zelesny didn't quite read the room as well in that moment, provoking Vance. Trump and Vance didn't need to react as strongly as they did, but frankly they do hold "the cards" so they're not really bothered if people (outside of their own supporters) like it or not.

On a more positive note, it wouldn't surprise me if the deal gets resurrected when everyone has calmed down, because there's still something in it for all parties, especially Trump, who I'm sure still wants the deal but only on his terms. Full video here for those interested:

I think youre being very naive if you think that minerals deal wasnt a crock from the start or that it wasnt a pre planned ambush.