There's an interesting diplomatic game being played here. For all the public statements of total support being made by European leaders, Vance has apparently said on Fox that European leaders say to the US privately that a deal needs to be done. Some will discount that because of who's saying it, but here's Peter Mandelson, our current ambassador to the US, speaking on ABC and saying Zelensky needs to give "unequivocal backing" to Trump's plan to end the war and Ukraine should be the first to commit to a ceasefire. I wonder what the reality is.
I think everyone is in agreement, including Starmer (who has said that the US is clearly critical to a peace deal being carved out) that we need to move forward, and that Zelenskyy needs to get back around the table on it. The balancing act is getting him to do so without him having to lose too much face, keeping the man-baby appeased that he's oh-so-clever and great, and then finding a deal that is both acceptable to Ukraine and Russia. It's not an easy one. I suspect it'll end up being a case of Russia keeping what they have now, and Zelenskyy having to suck that up, a minerals deal with the US which ensures US workers on the ground, supported by a nominal European military force. The latter Putin seems to be bucking against (for all the silly talk of Zelenskyy not wanting peace, they need to be looking over at Gollum and whether he really wants peace), but he'll hopefully have to suck that part up himself. It's **** on Ukraine, but seems to be the only way round things.
Just an addendum to that - regardless of what happens, Vance is a little toad and can **** the **** off. He was also saying about a peacekeeping force as "some random country that hasn't fought a war in 30-40 years" forgetting that the UK, France etc fought alongside the Yanks twice in Iraq, and in Afghanistan. He's ****ing thick as well as Peter Thiel's useful, bought idiot.
The reality is… don’t trust anything the Americans say right now. For a start, it was Trump who refused to sign a deal. He kicked Zelensky out when he had travelled haflway across the world to sign a deal. It was Trump who manufactured the exchange and acted in poor faith. It was Trump who let petty ego get in the way of peace. It was Zelensky who suggested the mineral deal. And Zelensky is within his rights to ask: how can I trust a ceasefire? And to say that a conversation in the press is the wrong place for that question is absurd. It is the burning question at the heart of his nation. But Trump wanted to use the time to talk about Biden. Zelensky has no problem with signing the mineral deal. He will also eventually agree to an unconditional ceasefire. If Russia break it - under any context - it will be humiliating for Trump, and probably the end of Ukraine. What Trump has carved out is a hopeless situation- and far more dangerous than the one Biden had left. If he had left his ego at the door and come at this from a point of neutrality, I think Trump COULD have done something important. But that looks unlikely now.
If you want to have some "fun", research Curtis Yarvin, a named influence on Peter Thiel (who funded Vance's ascension from nothing to VP) and also Vance cites him as an influence. Check out his Dark Enlightenment (democracy is dead and should be replaced by a CEO-Monarch) and particularly what he calls RAGE (Retire All Government Employees) and see if there's anything there that seems remarkably familiar.
I posted a video a while back of the technocrats who have supported Trump and the accelerationist movement. I found it very compelling that they have stated that they see nation states as dead and want to create their own smaller nations.
Yep & especially with an auto or semiautomatic weapon firing upwards of 600 rounds a min & capable of chopping trees in half. A definite must
Vance has addressed this though. He wasn't referring to the UK or France. Why anyone would think he was is beyond me.
It's not a question of trusting what the Americans say. That video shows the UK's Ambassador to the USA effectively backing Trump over Zelensky on American TV.
Perhaps because the UK and France are the only two countries that have committed to putting troops in a peacekeeping force, so there's literally nobody else he could have been referring to. He said something stupid, he got called out on it, and now he's wheeling out some feeble excuse to backtrack. The man is an arse.
No. I can understand people not liking Vance but he's well aware of the British and French involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. But there's clearly no point discussing this with you. Your hatred and rage towards Trump and everyone associated with him ooze from every post you make and it's very clear to me that anything any of them say will be interpreted by you to have the worst possible meaning.
Sure, it's entirely possible he didn't express himself as clearly as he should have. It's also very likely there have been private discussions and commitments made that he knows about and we don't. Oh please. You're better than this.
