3 ms·

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

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.

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.