5 ms·

The spat started when Vance made a point addressed to the US media (not Zelensky), and Zelensky interjected to confront Vance for his statement. Up until that

The spat started when Vance made a point addressed to the US media (not Zelensky), and Zelensky interjected to confront Vance for his statement. Up until that point there had been 40 minutes of cordial discussion. I don't think it was intended that the talks would break down and the deal would fall through.

tdb7893 2y ago
What did Vance say addressed to the media that Zelensky shouldn't have responded to? I've watched the video a few times and I don't really get what you're talking about https://youtu.be/O_BhxA1WDQY?si=7Ovl4-RpTCdi5ewZ https://youtu.be/O_BhxA1WDQY?si=7Ovl4-RpTCdi5ewZ
- sidibe 2y ago
  [flagged]
- haberman 2y ago
  In the full video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhquAWlke2o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhquAWlke2o), at 38:15 you can see the press ask a question that Trump (and then Vance) are responding to, directly prior to where your video begins. Trump and Vance are directing their answers at the reporter. Vance's reply does not criticize Zelensky at all. Then Zelensky interjects to directly confront Vance about his answer. That was the moment when it became argumentative. Don't get me wrong, I understand the righteous fury that Zelensky feels. His country was invaded. But I think it was a blunder to pick a fight over Vance's answer.
  - sureglymop 2y ago
    Could you please explain what part about his interjection/question was inaccurate or invalid?
    - haberman 2y ago
      I didn't say that it was inaccurate or invalid per se, only that he made the decision to pick a fight on live TV in what was previously a cordial conversation, and this (to me) strongly refutes the idea that Trump and Vance intentionally set this up to humiliate Zelensky.
      - sureglymop 2y ago
        I see that. However, it seems weird to broadcast this whole negotiation/talk/hour itself. Even the parts before that weren't really insightful or well formatted. It seems unprofessional and embarrassing for the US to do it in this way, even without the eventual climax.
        eric_cc 2y ago
        Because what we need is less transparency! /s
        regularjack 2y ago
        We should broadcast everything all branches of government do all the time, across thousands of channels so that the people can watch it all and make their own decisions on everything. Now that's transparency.
        eric_cc 2y ago
        If this were to happen, who would get the highest viewership ratings?
  - tdb7893 2y ago
    I've watched the whole video and Vance was asked a question about diplomacy in the Ukraine war, the idea that Zelensky doesn't get to respond to that while he's sitting in the room seems absurd. Why have him there if he can't give his opinion on diplomacy in Ukraine? If he was asked a question on American politics I would tend to agree but this is Americans here espousing their views on Ukrainian politics and then expecting to not hear the Ukrainian side to it.
    - haberman 2y ago
      Zelensky is negotiating continued American support for Ukraine. He can respond to whatever he wants, but if he's picking a fight publicly with the administration's position in a delicate multi-party negotiation, that can end up impacting his ability to get the support he needs. His point that Russia has not abided by previous agreements is well-taken. Clearly any future cease fire will need better enforcement provisions. But this is putting the cart before the horse: the deal that should have been signed today was not a cease fire, it was a mineral rights agreement. If and when a cease fire is on the table that Zelensky feels will be unenforceable, then he can criticize its provisions.
      - tdb7893 2y ago
        I don't really view Zelensky here as picking a fight. He was not really belligerent, if I was him I would've been livid at the things they were saying for the exact reasons Zelensky pointed out (and that's if ignoring how they were lecturing on diplomacy when they've spent the last couple months undermining his negotiation positions). I will admit it was a mistake for him to talk in this way but not because there's anything inherently wrong about it, just that Trump loves having his ass kissed and does not handle disagreement in a calm manner. It all seems more embarrassing for Trump and Vance than anything else
        eric_cc 2y ago
        He’s entitled to be livid. But beggars can’t be choosers. And he’s in the position of the beggar. I, for one, don’t want to keep dumping money on him throwing his citizens into the meat grinder.
  - lz400 2y ago
    I've watched it. I disagree. Zelensky calmly and reasonably asked JD Vance a question regarding his answer to the reporter. It was all fine until Vance started with the "frankly I think it's very disrespectful" line. HE decided to escalate. What Zelensky asked was reasonable and pretty in character for him. They know he's uncompromising with dealing with Putin. The _diplomatic_ position is to understand both sides and mediate, not to try to get one of the sides to bow down to their aggressor.
    - dustingetz 2y ago
      watched it once, this is what I saw (Vance suddenly antagonizing Zelensky as if to entrap a known hothead), and then followed by the two sly comments from Trump "that’s why I kept this going so long" and "this is going to be great television"
  - dustingetz 2y ago
    What tripped my spider sense is these two comments from Trump: TRUMP: "But you see, I think it’s good for the American people to see what’s going on. I think it’s very important. That’s why I kept this going so long." TRUMP: "All right, I think we’ve seen enough. What do you think? This is going to be great television."
    - naruhodo 2y ago
      Interesting. I just watched Trump greet Zelensky entering the Whitehouse with words like "and he even got all dressed up", foreshadowing Tulsi Gabbard's journalist boyfriend asking Z why he doesn't wear a suit. It was definitely a planned media ambush intended to undermine support for Z and Ukraine.
      - attentive 2y ago
        I think that was MTG boyfriend but still stands.
  - spacechild1 2y ago
    JD basically said "why don't we try diplomacy?" and Zelensky rightfully pointed out that they have already tried for multiple years, including a full ceasefire agreement in 2019 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements). Then Russia invaded Ukraine and tried to takeover the whole country. Either Vance has no idea what he's talking about or he wanted to provoke Zelensky. Also, Vance's claim that Trump is the first one to actually engage in diplomacy is pretty wild, considering that Trump called Zelensky a dictator and essentially succumbs to all of Putin's demands, going so far as to side with Russia in the UN.
UncleMeat 2y ago
Richard Hanania believes that we should repeal large portions of the Civil Rights Act and has previously posted extreme racial hatred on white supremacist websites.
- haberman 2y ago
  This is the genetic fallacy, unless you believe that these particular comments are somehow reflective of the odious views you are referencing. But congratulations, you win. I will delete that link rather than be drawn into an unrelated conversation about the history of one man's views.
  - patall 2y ago
    I am sorry, but this is stupid. You brought an argument on the basis that it comes from a neutral source. Turns out, it was not a neutral source. What do you do: hide the source. Edit to clarify what I mean: You could have written that you are of the same opinion, independent of who that is. But instead you hide it, as if you had come to that conclusion totally on your own.
    - haberman 2y ago
      I was not leaning on the credibility of this person in any way except to say that it changed his mind on this one specific issue. When a reply mentioned unrelated past statements from the same person, it was clear that they wanted to tar the statement by association rather than discuss it substantively.
      - UncleMeat 2y ago
        And I think that you should be immensely skeptical of what somebody like Hanania is trying to do to your mind and beliefs. I believe that mentioning that he is a virulent racist who is actively seeking a much more brutal and unjust world is critical to the substance of his other political writing. These are not unrelated statements.
  - 2y ago
m3kw9 2y ago
This guy is a probably a Russian bot. He talks like Ukraine was 2 minutes away from a victory and Zelenskyy just needed to stfu for 30 more seconds to get it.
dialup_sounds 2y ago
Vance seemed genuinely butthurt that Zelensky wasn't grovelling.
elihu 2y ago
I initially saw just the latter part of the meeting where the conflict happens and it seemed like a premeditated thing, but after finding a video that shows the meeting from the beginning[1], I agree that it comes across differently. It seems like they were having a pretty good meeting, right up until Vance decides to interject his stupid talking points, and then the exchange between Vance and Zelensky gets Trump to launch into his bizarre grievance tirade. It's like dementia was in full-self-driving mode and had no brakes. Maybe Vance got what he wanted out of this meeting, but I could plausibly believe that Trump wasn't planning for it to blow up like this -- he just didn't have the level of self-control or self-awareness to stop himself. Which isn't exactly a good look either. [1] https://youtu.be/Y7QxUHdvpk8?t=8693 https://youtu.be/Y7QxUHdvpk8?t=8693
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- OhioMan2943 2y ago
  Doesn't mean they both aren't irredeemably compromised and there isnt mountains of kompromat on dt

tdb7893 2y ago

What did Vance say addressed to the media that Zelensky shouldn't have responded to? I've watched the video a few times and I don't really get what you're talking about https://youtu.be/O_BhxA1WDQY?si=7Ovl4-RpTCdi5ewZ https://youtu.be/O_BhxA1WDQY?si=7Ovl4-RpTCdi5ewZ

sidibe 2y ago
[flagged]
haberman 2y ago
In the full video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhquAWlke2o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhquAWlke2o), at 38:15 you can see the press ask a question that Trump (and then Vance) are responding to, directly prior to where your video begins. Trump and Vance are directing their answers at the reporter. Vance's reply does not criticize Zelensky at all. Then Zelensky interjects to directly confront Vance about his answer. That was the moment when it became argumentative. Don't get me wrong, I understand the righteous fury that Zelensky feels. His country was invaded. But I think it was a blunder to pick a fight over Vance's answer.
- sureglymop 2y ago
  Could you please explain what part about his interjection/question was inaccurate or invalid?
  - haberman 2y ago
    I didn't say that it was inaccurate or invalid per se, only that he made the decision to pick a fight on live TV in what was previously a cordial conversation, and this (to me) strongly refutes the idea that Trump and Vance intentionally set this up to humiliate Zelensky.
    - sureglymop 2y ago
      I see that. However, it seems weird to broadcast this whole negotiation/talk/hour itself. Even the parts before that weren't really insightful or well formatted. It seems unprofessional and embarrassing for the US to do it in this way, even without the eventual climax.
      - eric_cc 2y ago
        Because what we need is less transparency! /s
        regularjack 2y ago
        We should broadcast everything all branches of government do all the time, across thousands of channels so that the people can watch it all and make their own decisions on everything. Now that's transparency.
        eric_cc 2y ago
        If this were to happen, who would get the highest viewership ratings?
- tdb7893 2y ago
  I've watched the whole video and Vance was asked a question about diplomacy in the Ukraine war, the idea that Zelensky doesn't get to respond to that while he's sitting in the room seems absurd. Why have him there if he can't give his opinion on diplomacy in Ukraine? If he was asked a question on American politics I would tend to agree but this is Americans here espousing their views on Ukrainian politics and then expecting to not hear the Ukrainian side to it.
  - haberman 2y ago
    Zelensky is negotiating continued American support for Ukraine. He can respond to whatever he wants, but if he's picking a fight publicly with the administration's position in a delicate multi-party negotiation, that can end up impacting his ability to get the support he needs. His point that Russia has not abided by previous agreements is well-taken. Clearly any future cease fire will need better enforcement provisions. But this is putting the cart before the horse: the deal that should have been signed today was not a cease fire, it was a mineral rights agreement. If and when a cease fire is on the table that Zelensky feels will be unenforceable, then he can criticize its provisions.
    - tdb7893 2y ago
      I don't really view Zelensky here as picking a fight. He was not really belligerent, if I was him I would've been livid at the things they were saying for the exact reasons Zelensky pointed out (and that's if ignoring how they were lecturing on diplomacy when they've spent the last couple months undermining his negotiation positions). I will admit it was a mistake for him to talk in this way but not because there's anything inherently wrong about it, just that Trump loves having his ass kissed and does not handle disagreement in a calm manner. It all seems more embarrassing for Trump and Vance than anything else
      - eric_cc 2y ago
        He’s entitled to be livid. But beggars can’t be choosers. And he’s in the position of the beggar. I, for one, don’t want to keep dumping money on him throwing his citizens into the meat grinder.
- lz400 2y ago
  I've watched it. I disagree. Zelensky calmly and reasonably asked JD Vance a question regarding his answer to the reporter. It was all fine until Vance started with the "frankly I think it's very disrespectful" line. HE decided to escalate. What Zelensky asked was reasonable and pretty in character for him. They know he's uncompromising with dealing with Putin. The _diplomatic_ position is to understand both sides and mediate, not to try to get one of the sides to bow down to their aggressor.
  - dustingetz 2y ago
    watched it once, this is what I saw (Vance suddenly antagonizing Zelensky as if to entrap a known hothead), and then followed by the two sly comments from Trump "that’s why I kept this going so long" and "this is going to be great television"
- dustingetz 2y ago
  What tripped my spider sense is these two comments from Trump: TRUMP: "But you see, I think it’s good for the American people to see what’s going on. I think it’s very important. That’s why I kept this going so long." TRUMP: "All right, I think we’ve seen enough. What do you think? This is going to be great television."
  - naruhodo 2y ago
    Interesting. I just watched Trump greet Zelensky entering the Whitehouse with words like "and he even got all dressed up", foreshadowing Tulsi Gabbard's journalist boyfriend asking Z why he doesn't wear a suit. It was definitely a planned media ambush intended to undermine support for Z and Ukraine.
    - attentive 2y ago
      I think that was MTG boyfriend but still stands.
- spacechild1 2y ago
  JD basically said "why don't we try diplomacy?" and Zelensky rightfully pointed out that they have already tried for multiple years, including a full ceasefire agreement in 2019 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements). Then Russia invaded Ukraine and tried to takeover the whole country. Either Vance has no idea what he's talking about or he wanted to provoke Zelensky. Also, Vance's claim that Trump is the first one to actually engage in diplomacy is pretty wild, considering that Trump called Zelensky a dictator and essentially succumbs to all of Putin's demands, going so far as to side with Russia in the UN.

UncleMeat 2y ago

Richard Hanania believes that we should repeal large portions of the Civil Rights Act and has previously posted extreme racial hatred on white supremacist websites.

haberman 2y ago
This is the genetic fallacy, unless you believe that these particular comments are somehow reflective of the odious views you are referencing. But congratulations, you win. I will delete that link rather than be drawn into an unrelated conversation about the history of one man's views.
- patall 2y ago
  I am sorry, but this is stupid. You brought an argument on the basis that it comes from a neutral source. Turns out, it was not a neutral source. What do you do: hide the source. Edit to clarify what I mean: You could have written that you are of the same opinion, independent of who that is. But instead you hide it, as if you had come to that conclusion totally on your own.
  - haberman 2y ago
    I was not leaning on the credibility of this person in any way except to say that it changed his mind on this one specific issue. When a reply mentioned unrelated past statements from the same person, it was clear that they wanted to tar the statement by association rather than discuss it substantively.
    - UncleMeat 2y ago
      And I think that you should be immensely skeptical of what somebody like Hanania is trying to do to your mind and beliefs. I believe that mentioning that he is a virulent racist who is actively seeking a much more brutal and unjust world is critical to the substance of his other political writing. These are not unrelated statements.
- 2y ago

m3kw9 2y ago

This guy is a probably a Russian bot. He talks like Ukraine was 2 minutes away from a victory and Zelenskyy just needed to stfu for 30 more seconds to get it.

dialup_sounds 2y ago

Vance seemed genuinely butthurt that Zelensky wasn't grovelling.

elihu 2y ago

I initially saw just the latter part of the meeting where the conflict happens and it seemed like a premeditated thing, but after finding a video that shows the meeting from the beginning[1], I agree that it comes across differently. It seems like they were having a pretty good meeting, right up until Vance decides to interject his stupid talking points, and then the exchange between Vance and Zelensky gets Trump to launch into his bizarre grievance tirade. It's like dementia was in full-self-driving mode and had no brakes. Maybe Vance got what he wanted out of this meeting, but I could plausibly believe that Trump wasn't planning for it to blow up like this -- he just didn't have the level of self-control or self-awareness to stop himself. Which isn't exactly a good look either. [1] https://youtu.be/Y7QxUHdvpk8?t=8693 https://youtu.be/Y7QxUHdvpk8?t=8693

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
OhioMan2943 2y ago
Doesn't mean they both aren't irredeemably compromised and there isnt mountains of kompromat on dt