A shameful performance. Zero empathy from US leaders for a country suffering 3 years of invasion and atrocity. I can only conclude that the goal was to scuttle a deal and blame it on Zelensky.
A mineral deal with Ukraine would obligate US security interests in the country. By going into business with them security from their neighbors becomes an interest of America. This is how negotiations with a powerful enemy is done: Russia saves face while losing his advantage, as American interests move in next door. America's people will get behind such spending whereas now, we are done because it is an endless drain on our resources at a when we have such great needs here.
You make a fair point but recent history does not bear it out. Expressing security interests in Iraq did not compel the US to protect and secure Iraq's oil and gas fields, we tried a hundred ways to get others to do it, and Iraq is still getting an oil industry back online that could've paid for the war. We had strategic interests in Afghanistan, but withdrew from securing copper and lithium deposits or making any sort of long term deal while China stepped in. Who's securing the world's largest cobalt reserves? That would be the Chinese and Rwandan-backed rebels in Congo. It's prudent for those who've watched recent US engagements to ask questions.
Well said Mindy. The whole episode infuriates me as well. American bullies admonishing a non-native English speaker has become shamefully and despairingly on-brand to the rest of the world. That it was done in the Oval Office in front of the media including a reporter from Russian State media is shocking in so many ways until one realizes that it was likely theater for Putin’s benefit. We are indeed now, or rather again, on the wrong side of history.
Yes Russia invaded Ukraine. Yes Putin is a despot. Yes Zalenski has rallied his people to fight and with billions of US dollars has basically held Russia at bay. But what Zelensky wants is billions more weaponry to keep the war going. There’s no way through combat he will ever defeat Russia. This thing would go on for years under those circumstances. Ending this thing and getting a peace deal is going to be tough, and will require drastic measures on both sides. Trump is trying to get the ball moving in that direction and by his actions yesterday, Zelensky doesn’t want any part of it. He wants the status quo. The minerals deal on the table would have ensured US involvement in the stability of Ukraine for years to come. Zalensky blew it off, instead demanding more weaponry. And for him to come into the Oval Office and demand that is the unconscionable thing here. I seriously doubt he will ever lead Ukraine to the table to secure peace.
I appreciate your knowledge in these areas, Bud, and friendship! And to reiterate what Snyder says, of course there will be differences about how to end a war. It's the bullying and shaming (and I would add, falsehoods) that are out of bounds. And even counterproductive. You know better than I, but it seems to me there are tactical ways through strategic differences: Zelensky is asking for security guarantees. Specifically he wants air defense systems and interceptor missiles. These could end civilian carnage, as we've seen US-funded systems do for Tel Aviv. And then ceasefire and negotiated agreement are possible, and everyone is on the hook. Now Putin is not on any hook. I get the disagreements over what happened yesterday, and it might be chalked to inexperienced scheduling secretaries. Highly unusually for a head of state to be escorted from his car to the OO with waiting press, and get down to business. If either side is genuinely interested in coming to terms, this conversation should've happened behind closed doors and apart from inane press questions and Vance poking a visiting leader who is his senior.
Timothy Snyder, who you referenced, was certainly one sided and did not discern any legitimate reasons for the administrations anger. The unspoken reality is that the United States is in a proxy war with Russia. It is insane and unreasonable. Maybe we should be furious. Russia will never stop fighting, and Ukraine is going to lose by attrition. Unless we want WWIII Ukraine is going to have to give up those Russian speaking areas of Ukraine. I suspect that what triggered Trump and Vance was Zelensky trying to make the case that diplomacy with Russia has been tried and failed. Was Zelensky just making a point or tacitly casting doubt on the administration's whole plan? This is Zelensky's big claim back home; we must continue to fight because no deal with Russian is possible. My experience is that when people are triggered like this, there is a whole lot of previous conversation that the public is not privy to. That is what I saw in that room.
Thank you for sharing. I am embarrassed and ashamed as an American. Where is the moral courage needed in The White House? I do not understand why no one will stand up to Putin~
History is written from two sides and ususally the conqueror's prevails. Your article and that of Timonthy Synder are very one sided. Much of this started many years ago under the presidency of Obama (Crimea) and then Biden(Burisma). Both those administrations played a big part in what the world faces today. I beleive it a stretch and simplistic to call Ukraine a democracy. "The Economist Intelligence Unit assesses nations' democratic status in its annual Democracy Index. The 2021 index concluded that Ukraine was a "flawed democracy" and also described it as a "hybrid regime.". It is listed as 3rd in Europe as most corrupt behind Russai and Azerbijan. I have always appreciated your insights in the Middle East. However, I am disapointed with the one sided approach to this article.
Even if what you say is true (it’s not — Ukraine IS a democracy) how is your point relevant? The issue is — Ukraine WAS moving to a reality where democracy would improve and corruption would decrease and allowing Russia to determine Ukraine’s future stops all that. In fact, keeping Ukraine as a corrupt, authoritarian vassal state to be absorbed into the new Russian Empire was Russia’s reason for invasion.
Ironically, this administration was elected in the guise of bringing "morality" and Christian values back to our nation. So some thought-but morality is more than being anti-abortion or anti-gay. In the fight against abortion we cry "sanctity of life"-what about the "sanctity of life" of Ukrainians and others who are being repressed and killed by corrupt regimes? I was going to say its time for impeachment proceedings to begin-but can you impeach a Vice-President as well?
Thank you, Mindy, again. There is no one I want to hear from, interpreting the ways of the world, as I do you. You have a moral compass, Havel-like— which is all to your credit and a great gift to us —so that your analysis cuts deeper than the partisan divide. The gospel of the kingdom requires that.
Thank you Mindy. The whole thing is heartbreaking...Our government seems to have lost any sense of moral center.
I felt ill watching the attacks by our President and VP... Thank you for your reporting!
Thanks for your comments. Well said.
Thank you x a million, Mindy.
Thanks for writing this Mindy. Helpful reasoning when all I feel is incredible rage at the injustice of it all
Thank you for your reporting and analysis. Your voice is needed. I'm grieving.
A shameful performance. Zero empathy from US leaders for a country suffering 3 years of invasion and atrocity. I can only conclude that the goal was to scuttle a deal and blame it on Zelensky.
A mineral deal with Ukraine would obligate US security interests in the country. By going into business with them security from their neighbors becomes an interest of America. This is how negotiations with a powerful enemy is done: Russia saves face while losing his advantage, as American interests move in next door. America's people will get behind such spending whereas now, we are done because it is an endless drain on our resources at a when we have such great needs here.
And that’s the point. Way too many emotional comments and little understanding of the situation.
You make a fair point but recent history does not bear it out. Expressing security interests in Iraq did not compel the US to protect and secure Iraq's oil and gas fields, we tried a hundred ways to get others to do it, and Iraq is still getting an oil industry back online that could've paid for the war. We had strategic interests in Afghanistan, but withdrew from securing copper and lithium deposits or making any sort of long term deal while China stepped in. Who's securing the world's largest cobalt reserves? That would be the Chinese and Rwandan-backed rebels in Congo. It's prudent for those who've watched recent US engagements to ask questions.
Well said Mindy. The whole episode infuriates me as well. American bullies admonishing a non-native English speaker has become shamefully and despairingly on-brand to the rest of the world. That it was done in the Oval Office in front of the media including a reporter from Russian State media is shocking in so many ways until one realizes that it was likely theater for Putin’s benefit. We are indeed now, or rather again, on the wrong side of history.
Thank you Mindy. I agree with you 100%.
Yes Russia invaded Ukraine. Yes Putin is a despot. Yes Zalenski has rallied his people to fight and with billions of US dollars has basically held Russia at bay. But what Zelensky wants is billions more weaponry to keep the war going. There’s no way through combat he will ever defeat Russia. This thing would go on for years under those circumstances. Ending this thing and getting a peace deal is going to be tough, and will require drastic measures on both sides. Trump is trying to get the ball moving in that direction and by his actions yesterday, Zelensky doesn’t want any part of it. He wants the status quo. The minerals deal on the table would have ensured US involvement in the stability of Ukraine for years to come. Zalensky blew it off, instead demanding more weaponry. And for him to come into the Oval Office and demand that is the unconscionable thing here. I seriously doubt he will ever lead Ukraine to the table to secure peace.
I appreciate your knowledge in these areas, Bud, and friendship! And to reiterate what Snyder says, of course there will be differences about how to end a war. It's the bullying and shaming (and I would add, falsehoods) that are out of bounds. And even counterproductive. You know better than I, but it seems to me there are tactical ways through strategic differences: Zelensky is asking for security guarantees. Specifically he wants air defense systems and interceptor missiles. These could end civilian carnage, as we've seen US-funded systems do for Tel Aviv. And then ceasefire and negotiated agreement are possible, and everyone is on the hook. Now Putin is not on any hook. I get the disagreements over what happened yesterday, and it might be chalked to inexperienced scheduling secretaries. Highly unusually for a head of state to be escorted from his car to the OO with waiting press, and get down to business. If either side is genuinely interested in coming to terms, this conversation should've happened behind closed doors and apart from inane press questions and Vance poking a visiting leader who is his senior.
Timothy Snyder, who you referenced, was certainly one sided and did not discern any legitimate reasons for the administrations anger. The unspoken reality is that the United States is in a proxy war with Russia. It is insane and unreasonable. Maybe we should be furious. Russia will never stop fighting, and Ukraine is going to lose by attrition. Unless we want WWIII Ukraine is going to have to give up those Russian speaking areas of Ukraine. I suspect that what triggered Trump and Vance was Zelensky trying to make the case that diplomacy with Russia has been tried and failed. Was Zelensky just making a point or tacitly casting doubt on the administration's whole plan? This is Zelensky's big claim back home; we must continue to fight because no deal with Russian is possible. My experience is that when people are triggered like this, there is a whole lot of previous conversation that the public is not privy to. That is what I saw in that room.
There are so many possible objections and counterpoints to your post, but I’ll stick with one. Why would you assume “Russia will never stop fighting”?
Thank you for sharing. I am embarrassed and ashamed as an American. Where is the moral courage needed in The White House? I do not understand why no one will stand up to Putin~
(or to Trump).
History is written from two sides and ususally the conqueror's prevails. Your article and that of Timonthy Synder are very one sided. Much of this started many years ago under the presidency of Obama (Crimea) and then Biden(Burisma). Both those administrations played a big part in what the world faces today. I beleive it a stretch and simplistic to call Ukraine a democracy. "The Economist Intelligence Unit assesses nations' democratic status in its annual Democracy Index. The 2021 index concluded that Ukraine was a "flawed democracy" and also described it as a "hybrid regime.". It is listed as 3rd in Europe as most corrupt behind Russai and Azerbijan. I have always appreciated your insights in the Middle East. However, I am disapointed with the one sided approach to this article.
Even if what you say is true (it’s not — Ukraine IS a democracy) how is your point relevant? The issue is — Ukraine WAS moving to a reality where democracy would improve and corruption would decrease and allowing Russia to determine Ukraine’s future stops all that. In fact, keeping Ukraine as a corrupt, authoritarian vassal state to be absorbed into the new Russian Empire was Russia’s reason for invasion.
Ironically, this administration was elected in the guise of bringing "morality" and Christian values back to our nation. So some thought-but morality is more than being anti-abortion or anti-gay. In the fight against abortion we cry "sanctity of life"-what about the "sanctity of life" of Ukrainians and others who are being repressed and killed by corrupt regimes? I was going to say its time for impeachment proceedings to begin-but can you impeach a Vice-President as well?
Thank you, Mindy, again. There is no one I want to hear from, interpreting the ways of the world, as I do you. You have a moral compass, Havel-like— which is all to your credit and a great gift to us —so that your analysis cuts deeper than the partisan divide. The gospel of the kingdom requires that.