Trump, Vance and Zelenskyy spar over Russian war in tense exchange at White House

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Democracy as represented by the EU and the US establishment is not something I am committed to. Why should I support a total war with Russia to contain them when Russia has no impact on me or my own? Why not live in a world where there are different systems or must there be endless crusades to expand the Godless western liberal democratic system everywhere on earth? Were you not satisfied with the crusades for democracy in the Middle East, now you want a total war with Russia? Haven't we learned the folly of regime change in the last 20 years? That the Neocons in attempting to maintain US hegemon only weakened the USA?

Click to expand...

Well, I can't disagree to much with you there. But does it take Russians or Nazis pounding on your door to get you to care?

Akita Suggagaki said:

Well, I can't disagree to much with you there. But does it take Russians or Nazis pounding on your door to get you to care?

Click to expand...

People in the UK already have police knocking on the door if they express the wrong opinions. They are entirely subjugated. What do they have to fear from Russians?

Akita Suggagaki said:

Well, I can't disagree to much with you there. But does it take Russians or Nazis pounding on your door to get you to care?

Click to expand...

Are the modern Russians essentially National Socialists in your mind?

Akita Suggagaki said:

Why not? That is at the heart of the entire conflict. Is it democracy v plutocracy or oligarchy or whatever you want to call the Russian system?

It certainly seems to be a clash of world views and governance competing for world dominance.

Should Russia be contained? stopped?

Click to expand...

Democracy has very little to do with it. In many substantial ways, Russian people have more freedom than the average UK or western European citizen.

The heart of the conflict is the "postwar consensus" - a western liberal elite who hate Russia mostly for the fact that they are a sovereign power that exists outside of that consensus.

You can see a microcosm of this conflict in the liberal/leftist that loses his mind when someone has a different opinion than they do. They are totalitarian in nature.

Russia did not go through postwar liberal revolution of the west following the world wars. They were at first culturally 'frozen' under communism, and then restored to a form of orthodox Christian nationalism after the fall of the soviet union. As a result, they have little respect for western liberal ideology, and so western liberals hate them, religiously.

The Postwar Consensus (NATO) is pushing into Ukraine because of an ideological hatred of Russia's existence as a competing civilization.

Russia's actions in Ukraine are not ideological at all, but existential.

lifepsyop said:

People in the UK already have police knocking on the door if they express the wrong opinions. They are entirely subjugated. What do they have to fear from Russians?

Click to expand...

Are you in the UK? I am. I've never heard of the police doing that. We have free speech but at times it needs to be curtailed. For example, if it was inciting violence, was immoral or harmful or could interfere with the due process of law. I don't see that as subjugation but living in a civilised society.

However we are not a Christian society and sometimes we have to make a stand for our faith which is contrary to the law, such as not wanting to support LGBT+ etc.

rebornfree said:

Are you in the UK? I am. I've never heard of the police doing that. We have free speech but at times it needs to be curtailed. For example, if it was inciting violence, was immoral or harmful or could interfere with the due process of law. I don't see that as subjugation but living in a civilised society.

However we are not a Christian society and sometimes we have to make a stand for our faith which is contrary to the law, such as not wanting to support LGBT+ etc.

Click to expand...

Right.. you have free speech as long as you don't disagree with things like homosexuality or mass immigration, or any other state-approved opinions.

I'm sure you can at least see why Americans find it ridiculous when UK and Europeans talk about fighting Russia to "preserve freedom and democracy". That narrative is a joke.

lifepsyop said:

Right.. you have free speech as long as you don't disagree with things like homosexuality or mass immigration, or any other state-approved opinions.

I'm sure you can at least see why Americans find it ridiculous when UK and Europeans talk about fighting Russia to "preserve freedom and democracy". That narrative is a joke.

Click to expand...

I don't think that there is any restriction on free speech on immigration. There is much discussion about the small boats coming across the English Channel. If the objections were racist then that would not be liked, because it would be seen as unfair discrimination, but discussion about how to cope with the numbers coming here, who is a refugee, who a legal migrant and who an illegal migrant is completely free, as is the dialogue about the desperate plight the people are in, compared to our resources and the fact that we have homeless people here. Generally speaking it's the people smugglers who are seen as the bad guys. I don't see a great contradiction between Government and Christian views on this, although there would have been about the Conservatives' Rwanda scheme I think. However we were perfectly free to express dissent with that.

LGBT+ is a much harder issue to deal with because it is socially accepted and protected in the equality legislation. I think the legislation is trying to make sure that everyone feels included and valued. We believe that people should be valued too, but certain behaviour is wrong and that God's way is best. We are a bit hamstrung with that. The best way, I think, is to introduce people to Jesus and, if they accept Him, He will help them live the way He wants them to. We also try to protect our Christian institutions from having to agree or support LGBT behaviour. It is a bit of a battle but Jesus said that we live in the world and the world does not know Him. I suppose we see it as a spiritual battle rather than a free speech issue, but I accept your point that there are limitations over what is socially acceptable to say. I can't imaging the police knocking on anyone's door though, except when someone is inciting violence.

As for Russia, I think the liberals see becoming Russian as restricting certain behaviours, but the issue is more a matter of not wanting to be taken over by another country. Also the Soviet Union, pre Gorbachev, imprisoned dissenters. Since Putin, Russia seems to be reverting to a less free regime than that brought in by Gorbachev (which followed seven years of prayer for the Soviet Union) where political dissent might incur severe suffering. We have political free speech here unless it incites violence or threatens national security; I don't think that they do

rebornfree said:

I noticed that you are in the EU. I'm in the UK. Maybe we feel sympathy with Zelensky more because Ukraine is on our continent.

Click to expand...

I would say we are simply better informed and that we have historical experience with such things. We are also closer to it and more influenced by it.
More than somebody from New Zealand (or where he is from) pretending to know everything about us and asking questions that are not based in reality.

trophy33 said:

I would say we are simply better informed and that we have historical experience with such things. We are also closer to it and more influenced by it.
More than somebody from New Zealand (or where he is from) pretending to know everything about us and asking questions that are not based in reality.

Click to expand...

I don't pretend to know everything. But I do know of the general situation in Europe. I also lament the future of Europe. Also, yes I'm from New Zealand.

sanderabeer said:

I did watch the video. And he did use the word "feel." But he did not communicate what a handful of people think he was communicating. Let me quote him directly so we get the context. Zelensky said:


What is Zelensky saying we "don't feel now?" Problems. What is Zelensky saying we will feel "in the future?" Problems.

He's not telling what we will feel emotionally. He's not telling us that we should feel a certain way. He's not threatening us. He's telling us that we will experience problems in the future based on the outcome of the war.

This is really a noncontroversial statement.

If Ukraine loses and Russia wins, it creates problems for the US. It would reshape geopolitical matters, and that will lead to problems for the US. It would problem Russia with more resource, and that will lead to problems for the US.

The problem is that Trump is emotionally insecure. And because he's insecure, he took the statement as a threat. This is precisely why he responded in a defensive manner. Trump responded:


If Trump was emotionally secure, a critical thinker, a good communicator, and initially interpreted it as a threat, he wouldn't have responded in a defensive manner. Instead, he would have asked Zelensky what he meant by that. He could have salvaged the meeting.

Click to expand...

So, you're twisting what Zelensky said in order to justify your post.

BTW, I saw Zelensky threaten Vance when he said he would feel war soon in the future.

I hope that security for Trump, Vance and their family members is up as Ukraine is known for assassinating
political leaders who don't agree with them.

sanderabeer said:

This is a false dilemma. There are a multitude of options beyond these.

Click to expand...

No it's not a false dilemma. Put will not be humiliated by loosing a conflict with Ukraine
He will use nuclear weapons if he needs to before being humiliated.

rebornfree said:

Trump, after commenting on Zelensky's clothes which was bad mannered, told him that his country is in trouble. Can you imagine how that

Click to expand...

Trump didn't comment on Zelensky's clothes, a reporter did.

JimR-OCDS said:

So, you're twisting what Zelensky said in order to justify your post.

BTW, I saw Zelensky threaten Vance when he said he would feel war soon in the future.

I hope that security for Trump, Vance and their family members is up as Ukraine is known for assassinating
political leaders who don't agree with them.

Click to expand...

I am not twisting what Zelensky said. I am reporting what he said and what he meant by it.

And when I used the word "insecure" I was not talking about physical security. I was specifically talking about emotional insecurity. This is why I used the adjective emotional immediately before insecurity.

sanderabeer said:

I am not twisting what Zelensky said. I am reporting what he said and what he meant by it.

Click to expand...

Then your reading comprehension is failing you.

rebornfree said:

I don't think that there is any restriction on free speech on immigration. There is much discussion about the small boats coming across the English Channel. If the objections were racist then that would not be liked, because it would be seen as unfair discrimination, but discussion about how to cope with the numbers coming here, who is a refugee, who a legal migrant and who an illegal migrant is completely free, as is the dialogue about the desperate plight the people are in, compared to our resources and the fact that we have homeless people here. Generally speaking it's the people smugglers who are seen as the bad guys. I don't see a great contradiction between Government and Christian views on this, although there would have been about the Conservatives' Rwanda scheme I think. However we were perfectly free to express dissent with that.

Click to expand...

It's hard to imagine how transforming your country into a majority Muslim nation is part of a Christian worldview, but maybe that is a British thing I don't fully understand.

In any case, you are not allowed to say you want to end Muslim immigration, without police showing up at your door at least. Like you said, that would be interpreted as "racism".

That is a fundamental question of immigration, of what the nature of your country will become, that you have no freedom to discuss.

rebornfree said:

LGBT+ is a much harder issue to deal with because it is socially accepted and protected in the equality legislation. I think the legislation is trying to make sure that everyone feels included and valued. We believe that people should be valued too, but certain behaviour is wrong and that God's way is best. We are a bit hamstrung with that. The best way, I think, is to introduce people to Jesus and, if they accept Him, He will help them live the way He wants them to. We also try to protect our Christian institutions from having to agree or support LGBT behaviour. It is a bit of a battle but Jesus said that we live in the world and the world does not know Him. I suppose we see it as a spiritual battle rather than a free speech issue, but I accept your point that there are limitations over what is socially acceptable to say. I can't imaging the police knocking on anyone's door though, except when someone is inciting violence.

Click to expand...

"except when someone is inciting violence", see there you go. If you criticize LGBT lifestyle, then you are 'inciting violence' against the LGBT community. It's that simple, and those encounters with law enforcement are documented.

At the very least, your speech is heavily suppressed with the threat of the law looming over you.

rebornfree said:

As for Russia, I think the liberals see becoming Russian as restricting certain behaviours, but the issue is more a matter of not wanting to be taken over by another country. Also the Soviet Union, pre Gorbachev, imprisoned dissenters. Since Putin, Russia seems to be reverting to a less free regime than that brought in by Gorbachev (which followed seven years of prayer for the Soviet Union) where political dissent might incur severe suffering. We have political free speech here unless it incites violence or threatens national security; I don't think that they do

Click to expand...

I think it is arguable that Russians, especially Russian Christians, have much more freedom then you yourself do. That may produce some cognitive dissonance since you've always been taught that the west is the free world.

Political dissent may seem more open in the UK, but that's only because you aren't dissenting against any real locus of power.

You are not ruled by politicians, but by an ideology.

You are free to switch out any number of political leaders, but if you dissent from the ideology, you will, as discussed, find officers appearing on your doorstep.

Whatever you think of supposed restrictions on political dissent in Russia, (Putin is extremely popular with the people generally, like it or not), the situation is far, far worse in Ukraine where political opposition is quite literally banned, and young men who don't want to fight in Zelensky's war are routinely kidnapped in broad daylight to be sent to the frontlines.

Your country, the UK, now supports one of the worst tyrannical police states in modern history, and is now planning to send their own military to support this abomination.

JimR-OCDS said:

BTW, I saw Zelensky threaten Vance when he said he would feel war soon in the future.

Click to expand...

Yea, like a common extortionist, the rat was attempting to sow fear in the American public generally. "Support our war or suffer yourselves"

Trump saw that he was trying to gain leverage with fear propaganda and immediately shut him down. Good for him.

JimR-OCDS said:

Then your reading comprehension is failing you.

Click to expand...

My listening and reading comprehension are fine. This is evident by the fact that I pointed to the context of the "feel" statement. I'll repost with a more extensive explanation.

What did Zelensky say? He said:

First of all, during the war, everybody has problems. Even you, but you have nice ocean and don’t feel now, but you’ll feel it in the future.

Click to expand...

The word "but" is a connective in English. It creates a relationship between the clause which follows it and the clause which proceeds it.

By using the word "but" Zelensky is making a connection between "everybody has problems" and "you ... don't feel now." Why would he make that connection?

It's because he is saying that America (i.e., "you") does not have problems from the war right now.

He goes on to add another "but" to connect the clause "you'll feel it in the future." Again, drawing upon the context, he is saying that America will have problems from the war in the future.

This is a non-controversial statement. The war in Ukraine will impact America.

But, Trump is emotionally insecure and actually does have listening and reading comprehension problems. So he responds with a "you're not the boss of me" quip.

lifepsyop said:

Yea, like a common extortionist, the rat was attempting to sow fear in the American public generally. "Support our war or suffer yourselves"

Trump saw that he was trying to gain leverage with fear propaganda and immediately shut him down. Good for him.

Click to expand...

No, Zelensky is not sowing fear. Very few Americans felt fear from his statements. Those who did feel fear most likely live in perpectual state of fear, which is actually not a Christian trait.

sanderabeer said:

No, Zelensky is not sowing fear. Very few Americans felt fear from his statements.

Click to expand...

That was exactly what he was trying to do, whether or not it had any effect. "Big Bad Putin is coming for you next!" That has been the whole narrative since the beginning. Of course Zelensky was intending to play up those fears to an American audience... what else would he be doing?

He didn't get much of a chance with Trump and Vance in the room, though.

sanderabeer said:

Those who did feel fear most likely live in perpectual state of fear, which is actually not a Christian trait.

Click to expand...

I would tend to agree with that. Some Americans also have an obsessive hatred of Russia and would happily sacrifice every last Ukrainian on the battlefield if it meant inflicting a little more damage on them.

lifepsyop said:

That was exactly what he was trying to do, whether or not it had any effect. "Big Bad Putin is coming for you next!" That has been the whole narrative since the beginning. Of course Zelensky was intending to play up those fears to an American audience... what else would he be doing?

Click to expand...

He said America would experience problems as a result of the war. This statement is non-controversial. We have, we are, and we will continue to experience problems from the war.

Why did the worldwide press largely see this event as Trump and Vance embarrassing the US rather than Zelensky fearmongering? It's because most of them realize that Zelensky was not fearmongering. They understand his situation, and they understand that fearmongering would run counter to his goals.

lifepsyop said:

He didn't get much of a chance with Trump and Vance in the room, though.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's because Trump and Vance deployed a steamroller. They kept interrupting and talking over him.

lifepsyop said:

Some Americans also have an obsessive hatred of Russia and would happily sacrifice every last Ukrainian on the battlefield if it meant inflicting a little more damage on them.

Click to expand...

50 years of American propaganda against Russia will do that, but not all of that propaganda was wrong. As someone who works in cybersecurity, I can tell you that Russia is the primary APT followed closely by China.