Quote Originally Posted by jackal2 View Post
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.