Negotiating Peace

As he sets out to end the war in Ukraine President Trump has run up against an unforeseen obstacle-- the Ukrainian president Zelensky.

Negotiations between America and Russia have begun, fairly productively. The Ukrainian president took serious offense at not being invited and began trash talking Trump. Evidently, he is not ready for prime time.

Trump responded strongly to the offense:

Think of it, a modestly successful comedian, Volodymyr Zelenskyy [sic], talked the United States of America into spending $350 Billion Dollars, to go into a War that couldn’t be won, that never had to start, but a War that he, without the U.S. and ‘TRUMP,’ will never be able to settle, The United States has spent $200 Billion Dollars more than Europe, and Europe’s money is guaranteed, while the United States will get nothing back.

For Trump the war represented a failure to negotiate. A failure to make a deal. While the Russians were certainly at fault for invading a sovereign country, from Trump’s perspective, Ukraine and the United States could have negotiated a solution to the problem, short of mindless carnage and destruction.

Since Zelensky needed some coaching, Vice President Vance offered lessons.

It wasn’t Munich, so it did not receive quite as much attention. Still, we pay special heed to an interview that Vice President JD Vance gave to The National Pulse.

Vance described Zelensky’s approach as “disgraceful” and counterproductive, emphasizing that such tactics could jeopardize Ukraine’s relationship with its most crucial ally.

This is called putting someone in his place. It pertains especially when you are dependent on American largesse in order to continue the fight:

“Zelensky is getting really bad advice, and I don’t know from whom,” Vance said. “He’s not dealing with Joe Biden and the Biden administration anymore. He’s dealing with Donald Trump and the Trump administration.”

Vance suggested that speaking out against Trump in public was a very bad idea. It signaled weakness, not strength:

Vance warned against Zelensky’s public protestations in recent days, stating, “The idea that he’s going to litigate his disagreements with the president in the public square—I mean, you [Raheem] know the President very well, obviously, I know the President very well. This is not a good way to deal with President Trump,” Vance said. “Of course, the Ukrainians are going to have their perspective. The way to surface that is in a private discussion with American diplomats… he’s attacking the only reason this country exists, publicly, right now. And it’s disgraceful. And it’s not something that is going to move the President of the United States. In fact, it’s going to have the opposite effect.”

Vance recommended that the Ukrainians and the other European nations get on board, to present a united front.

Vance went on, stressing the point: “He has said the goal of administration policy is to end the conflict. So now, you know that has to happen. Right. Zelensky has to take that seriously. Our European allies have to take that seriously. That is the goal of administration policy. You’re not going to move the President away from that goal. You’re not going to change his mind, certainly not by attacking him publicly in the media.”

And I think that it’s a little rich for some of our European friends to attack Donald Trump for suggesting that Ukraine should have elections when they say that this is a war for democracy. How can you attack elections when your entire framing for the war in Ukraine is that it’s a war for democracy? I just think it’s ridiculous. And, of course, the United States had a civil war. We had an election in, of course, at the, at the end of as scheduled. You know, Churchill found out that he lost. As I understand it, he found out that he lost the British election at Potsdam.”

We shall see whether the lesson gets through to  the petulant Ukrainian.