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

[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.

[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.

[Old_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.

Trump: Zelensky you've got to lick my arse like I've licked Putin's.
Zelensky: Eff off, we'll fight alone if we have to

Clearly Trump and Putin have a plan to share Ukraine between them. Brexit does not stop the Europeans getting together. The EU haven't intervened sufficiently to help Ukraine. There must be enough Western power, not just Europe, to rally against the USA, kick them out of their bases, impose tariffs, get away from the awful M$oft and X systems.

My worst fears of my post #695 seem to be coming to fruition.

Oh, and take those golf courses off of him and bin the invitation to come to the see the King.

What's worse is that the Americans probably love him the more for what he's doing.

[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.

[jackal2]

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.

Zelensky presumably saw and agreed to the terms of the deal in order to make the journey, and I'm not sure what Trump or Vance gained from having to cancel the signing ceremony designed to show off Trump's achievement as the great dealmaker. Watching the whole thing through I think it's what appeared to be, in fact the changes in body language by the second reveal it: a meeting that went well for the first half hour but then fell apart, and from which none of the participants gained any particular benefit, in fact quite the opposite.

[BigFatPie]

Zelensky presumably saw and agreed to the terms of the deal in order to make the journey, and I'm not sure what Trump or Vance gained from having to cancel the signing ceremony designed to show off Trump's achievement as the great dealmaker. Watching the whole thing through I think it's what appeared to be, in fact the changes in body language by the second reveal it: a meeting that went well for the first half hour but then fell apart, and from which none of the participants gained any particular benefit, in fact quite the opposite.

Do you not think its possible/likely that they got Zelenskyy, obviously not wanting to lose US support, over to Washington on the pretence of signing an at best vague deal to then blow it up and say *we did our best* before then withdrawing US support( I dont claim to know why Trump is all in with Putin, Im sure weve heard all the theories).

These sorts of people always need cover stories.

[jackal2]

Do you not think its possible/likely that they got Zelenskyy, obviously not wanting to lose US support, over to Washington on the pretence of signing an at best vague deal to then blow it up and say *we did our best* before then withdrawing US support( I dont claim to know why Trump is all in with Putin, Im sure weve heard all the theories).

These sorts of people always need cover stories.

I think if the deal had been that vague, they wouldn't even have got Zelenskyy (congratulations on right spelling!) as far as the Oval Office. Yes he's in a bad position, but whatever was in those papers must have been credible enough to get him to sit in the room and believe it was worth his while.

Whatever people make of him, I think Trump serves Trump, and if Trump thinks he can manipulate Europe and the Ukraine into doing what he wants by playing the pro-Putin card then he'll use it for as long as it suits him. Likewise, if at some point in the future it suits him to throw Putin under the bus because somebody else has something better to offer in return, I think he would do that too.

I don't doubt that Putin wanted Trump in the White House rather than Biden, because he knew Trump would at least negotiate to him and that the American President (whoever it is) effectively decides who is a 'pariah state' and who isn't, but if Putin at any point does something to undermine Trump's interests I've got no doubt Trump would drop him like a bad habit and call him a "bad person"... until he did something Trump liked again.

There is a critique of Trump that I think is correct, whatever political angle it comes from. He's motivated by money, power and ego and is as cynical as they come. He will work with anyone and likewise discard anyone if it suits him, even swapping back and forth without any embarrassment - that was yesterday, this is now. He's got that ruthless streak, and he's no fool. He might not speak or act like a politician is supposed to, but he can see opportunity and identify weakness like a shark smells blood.

It's no coincidence he used to do a lot of deal making with boxing promoters and a certain wrestling promoter who had the same mindset: if you were useful to their business at a given time then they were your best friend, but if you were not useful or a spent force you were cast off or even regarded as the enemy. They're not loyal, but they will drop any grudge they have against someone if doing business with them again makes sense.

I can quite see why these individuals are not regarded as "nice" people, because they're really not, but it is said nice guys come last. If ever there was a character-type designed to survive if not thrive in the psychopathic game that is international politics, this is it. That's why so many seem to end up there.

There's certainly never any shortage of theories and rumours. I thought Putin was supposed to have died of cancer or Parkinsons by now. The reality is that the trusted western media were clearly peddling BS, or at least being over-optimistic on the timescale.

[Bohinen]

I think if the deal had been that vague, they wouldn't even have got Zelenskyy (congratulations on right spelling!) as far as the Oval Office.

So we've all been spelling it the wrong way? The reality is, the actual name is written in a different alphabet and you are just talking about the romanised version, and either Zelensky or Zelenskyy is acceptable. From Wikipedia ...

Its Russian spelling Зеленский is romanized Zelenski, Zelenskii, Zelenskiy, or Zelensky, and originates from the toponym Zelyonoe (Зелёное), meaning 'green'.[1] Its feminine counterpart is Зеленская (Zelenskaya or Zelenskaia).

Its Ukrainian spelling Зеленський is romanized Zelenskyi, Zelensky, Zelenskiy, or Zelenskyy, and originates from the toponym Zelene (Зелене), meaning 'green'.[1] Its feminine counterpart is Зеленська (Zelenska).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelensky_(surname)