Admitting this feels like blaming Ukraine and/or Zelensky for the failure, but it also seems incredibly reasonable. It seems like a little bit of deference would have won Ukraine a lot more goodwill from the foreign power most capable of ending the war for Ukraine on the most advantageous terms. I have no doubt that Putin and the Russians pander to Trumps ego, calling his political comeback a masterstroke and just generally making him feel important.
I'm sure Putin just parrots back Trump's ideas while calling them very intelligent, making him feel that Trump has the leverage over Russia and Ukraine, while just doing whatever Russia wants on the ground in the meantime. It costs Russia nothing, weakens support for Ukraine, and generates even more conflict between the right and left in the US (by appealing to Trump, Trump says positive things publicly about Putin, which causes strong backlash from the left, and psychologically pushes Trump & Co. further towards defending their nominally pro-Russian position).
If Zelensky was just willing to call whatever Trump had to say genius, make loose concessions that had no significant practical costs in the long run (The mineral deal is so vague it would be very easy for Ukraine to pull out in 5-10 years *long after* US leverage forced a more favorable ceasefire for Ukraine). The half-trillion dollar deal is at least a 95% exaggeration (that's literally 2.5x Ukraine's GDP), but giving Trump the talking point "We made the greatest of deals with Ukraine. They gave us 500 BILLION dollars worth of resources. That's Billion with a B Folks. Never before has our Country made such a Great Deal. Do you think BIDEN could do that? I don't think so. Only I could do that Folks. And really, I think that Zelensky is a great guy. Smart guy. He respects the US so much. What did you say? Putin? He's a smart guy too, CUNNING. Smart but Cunning. We want to make a deal and end the war, and I think we can make a really great deal. Putin and Zelensky both know we can decide to make a deal. And we're going to make a great deal for the country. etc. etc." would go a very long way.
It's hard to assign blame to Zelensky since his country is being invaded, and taking a hardline emotional position in response to that is understandable, but at the same time you can't call it prudent.
"expanding minerals production in Ukraine is a tall order: the country’s geological surveys have not been updated since the Soviet era; its ability to power energy-intensive mines has been devastated by the war; and the capital intensity and long-lived nature of mining investment means that only the most risk-tolerant capital will flow into an active war zone. Finally, a significant proportion of Ukrainian minerals – including about half of its rare earth deposits – are in areas of the country under Russian control, and Putin is looking to do his own deal to supply the US with rare earths. The draft Ukraine deal also gives the US a share in future oil and natural gas projects in Ukraine, but crucially not in existing, profitable projects. As the world’s largest producer of oil and gas, the US hardly needs these rights."
Moreover, the deal could easily be renegotiated when the Democrats get back into office (or possibly with Trump's Republican successor, assuming it's not JD Vance).
Interesting piece. It made me think about how much of international reputation comes down not just to actions, but to how you package and sell those actions to the world.
A small example, if you ask people which countries fought alongside the US in the Korean War, Turkey almost always gets a mention, thanks to the legendary status of the Turkish Brigade. But Greece? Almost nobody remembers that Greek troops were there too, fighting under the same UN flag.
The difference isn’t what they did. Greek soldiers fought bravely, especially at Outpost Harry. It is rather how well each country managed the "story" of their involvement. Turkey actively cultivated the image of a fearless ally standing with the West, and it became part of their Cold War identity. Greece, on the other hand, treated its contribution more quietly, overshadowed by its own internal struggles after the Civil War.
The point being: what you do matters, but how you sell your story might matter even more. Something to keep in mind whenever we analyse the optics of leaders, speeches, and even fashion choices like Zelensky’s non-tie.
Did Mohamed bin Salman or Narendra Modi wear suits when visiting Trump? I’m sure they have national interests to protect too. Elon Musk has been hanging around Trump a lot lately, not much into wearing suits that one either. This whole notion that you have to flatter and please Trump to extract favors from him doesn’t seem to fit what he’s actually done in the past. He tends to back down from confrontation with people who seem to be in a position of strength and tends to lean into attacking those he considers weak. I agree that Zelensky might have done better to stay quiet at times in that meeting, but he’s not to blame for Trump/Vance’s gullible consumption of Putin talking points about how Ukraine “has no cards”. Trump does not like being associated with Ukraine because he’s been convinced that Ukraine is losing or will lose. I think Zelensky’s job was to persuade him otherwise, and I don’t think he would have pulled that off by wearing a Maga hat and bending over. This particular meeting went poorly, but I would bet that Zelensky standing up for his country in a consistent fashion will actually be the best positioning for him in the end.
Regarding MBS and Modi, I'd say there are a number of factors at play here:
1. They probably get a pass in Trump's mind because they're non-white and wearing ethnic garb.
2. Saudi Arabia and India have much more leverage over the US than Ukraine. India is a rising global power, while Saudi Arabia is a major supplier of oil.
Ukraine doesn't have the same leverage as Saudi Arabia or India, which is why Zelensky needs to ramp up the flattery and build a better relationship with Trump. I agree that he shouldn't grovel, but even better-positioned leaders know how to play to Trump's ego. From the linked article above: "Mr Modi made several references to Mr Trump's Maga slogan – 'Make America Great Again' – and at one point suggested he would adopt his own version: 'It's Make India Great Again - Miga.'" Zelensky could've praised Trump while also projecting Ukrainian strength. For example, as I mentioned in the post, Ukraine now has the largest standing army in Europe (excluding Russia). That's a point he should've emphasized, instead of arguing that "during the war, everybody has problems." Contra Trump, Ukraine does actually have some good cards, but Zelensky didn't play them well in that meeting.
I can see your point and if Trump had been up for negotiations, I'd have thought it a solid one. However, you're also assuming that Zelensky had any chance of persuading Trump that night. I'm not convinced that he did or that any clothing choices would have made a difference.
It's possible that Zelensky was the victim of a pre-planned ambush. But none of those articles provide evidence for that scenario. Vance only launched his tirade after Zelensky questioned him. And Vance was not criticizing Ukraine when Zelensky interrupted him; he was criticizing Biden. I'm not refuting Zelensky's point that Putin is untrustworthy. But I am questioning the wisdom of Zelensky making that point in the manner he did.
It’s fine to criticize Trump for being pro-Putin online. But if you’re the Ukrainian leader, your job is to use diplomacy to bring him closer to your own side. Is that a lost cause? I’m not so fatalistic. Trump supplied arms to Ukraine in his first term. He’s capable of shifting positions in response to incentives and pressure (eg, the recently postponed tariffs on Mexico and Canada). Maybe Ukraine can’t avoid an imposed cease-fire agreement at this stage, but it can still influence the shape of that agreement.
For all we know Zelenskyy wanted to offer all these things. But they never hit the nagotiation table to discuss them. Trump also didn't care about Zelenskyy's war clothes. Earlier in the interview he says:
> And I do like your clothing, by the way. You’re going to have to… I think he’s a great guy, by the way. I don’t know if you two like each other, but you know what? I think he’s a great guy.
This is spot on and it’s worth asking why Ben even needed to write it. Why did the political class not quickly focus on such a common sense view?
My theory: because the political system is dysfunctional to the point of paralysis, posturing and virtue signaling - on both sides of the aisle - has replaced meaningful action. Posing substitutes for politics.
What paralyzed the system? The staggering cost of election campaigns. Candidates self-censor to avoid alienating potential donors. This takes solutions to the country’s problems off the table. Unable to take meaningful action, politicians posture, affirm their moral superiority, and demonize their opponents to distract us from their failures.
And then elites wonder why the voters don’t trust them and the system loses its legitimacy.
Admitting this feels like blaming Ukraine and/or Zelensky for the failure, but it also seems incredibly reasonable. It seems like a little bit of deference would have won Ukraine a lot more goodwill from the foreign power most capable of ending the war for Ukraine on the most advantageous terms. I have no doubt that Putin and the Russians pander to Trumps ego, calling his political comeback a masterstroke and just generally making him feel important.
I'm sure Putin just parrots back Trump's ideas while calling them very intelligent, making him feel that Trump has the leverage over Russia and Ukraine, while just doing whatever Russia wants on the ground in the meantime. It costs Russia nothing, weakens support for Ukraine, and generates even more conflict between the right and left in the US (by appealing to Trump, Trump says positive things publicly about Putin, which causes strong backlash from the left, and psychologically pushes Trump & Co. further towards defending their nominally pro-Russian position).
If Zelensky was just willing to call whatever Trump had to say genius, make loose concessions that had no significant practical costs in the long run (The mineral deal is so vague it would be very easy for Ukraine to pull out in 5-10 years *long after* US leverage forced a more favorable ceasefire for Ukraine). The half-trillion dollar deal is at least a 95% exaggeration (that's literally 2.5x Ukraine's GDP), but giving Trump the talking point "We made the greatest of deals with Ukraine. They gave us 500 BILLION dollars worth of resources. That's Billion with a B Folks. Never before has our Country made such a Great Deal. Do you think BIDEN could do that? I don't think so. Only I could do that Folks. And really, I think that Zelensky is a great guy. Smart guy. He respects the US so much. What did you say? Putin? He's a smart guy too, CUNNING. Smart but Cunning. We want to make a deal and end the war, and I think we can make a really great deal. Putin and Zelensky both know we can decide to make a deal. And we're going to make a great deal for the country. etc. etc." would go a very long way.
It's hard to assign blame to Zelensky since his country is being invaded, and taking a hardline emotional position in response to that is understandable, but at the same time you can't call it prudent.
Yeah, I'd focus more on the symbolism than the terms of the minerals deal. Per Niall Ferguson (https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/dirty-deal-what-trump-really-wants-from-ukraines-natural-resources/):
"expanding minerals production in Ukraine is a tall order: the country’s geological surveys have not been updated since the Soviet era; its ability to power energy-intensive mines has been devastated by the war; and the capital intensity and long-lived nature of mining investment means that only the most risk-tolerant capital will flow into an active war zone. Finally, a significant proportion of Ukrainian minerals – including about half of its rare earth deposits – are in areas of the country under Russian control, and Putin is looking to do his own deal to supply the US with rare earths. The draft Ukraine deal also gives the US a share in future oil and natural gas projects in Ukraine, but crucially not in existing, profitable projects. As the world’s largest producer of oil and gas, the US hardly needs these rights."
Moreover, the deal could easily be renegotiated when the Democrats get back into office (or possibly with Trump's Republican successor, assuming it's not JD Vance).
Interesting piece. It made me think about how much of international reputation comes down not just to actions, but to how you package and sell those actions to the world.
A small example, if you ask people which countries fought alongside the US in the Korean War, Turkey almost always gets a mention, thanks to the legendary status of the Turkish Brigade. But Greece? Almost nobody remembers that Greek troops were there too, fighting under the same UN flag.
The difference isn’t what they did. Greek soldiers fought bravely, especially at Outpost Harry. It is rather how well each country managed the "story" of their involvement. Turkey actively cultivated the image of a fearless ally standing with the West, and it became part of their Cold War identity. Greece, on the other hand, treated its contribution more quietly, overshadowed by its own internal struggles after the Civil War.
The point being: what you do matters, but how you sell your story might matter even more. Something to keep in mind whenever we analyse the optics of leaders, speeches, and even fashion choices like Zelensky’s non-tie.
Did Mohamed bin Salman or Narendra Modi wear suits when visiting Trump? I’m sure they have national interests to protect too. Elon Musk has been hanging around Trump a lot lately, not much into wearing suits that one either. This whole notion that you have to flatter and please Trump to extract favors from him doesn’t seem to fit what he’s actually done in the past. He tends to back down from confrontation with people who seem to be in a position of strength and tends to lean into attacking those he considers weak. I agree that Zelensky might have done better to stay quiet at times in that meeting, but he’s not to blame for Trump/Vance’s gullible consumption of Putin talking points about how Ukraine “has no cards”. Trump does not like being associated with Ukraine because he’s been convinced that Ukraine is losing or will lose. I think Zelensky’s job was to persuade him otherwise, and I don’t think he would have pulled that off by wearing a Maga hat and bending over. This particular meeting went poorly, but I would bet that Zelensky standing up for his country in a consistent fashion will actually be the best positioning for him in the end.
Regarding MBS and Modi, I'd say there are a number of factors at play here:
1. They probably get a pass in Trump's mind because they're non-white and wearing ethnic garb.
2. Saudi Arabia and India have much more leverage over the US than Ukraine. India is a rising global power, while Saudi Arabia is a major supplier of oil.
3. Both countries have announced major investments in the US that make Trump look like a winner (Saudi Arabia: https://www.newsweek.com/saudi-trump-trillion-dollars-investment-2041220, India: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-modi-tariffs-us-oil-gas-export-b2698142.html).
4. MBS and Modi have cultivated personal and/or business ties with Trump and family. Consider Modi's "Namaste Trump" rally (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/24/namaste-donald-trump-india-welcomes-us-president-narendra-modi-rally) and the Saudis' $2 billion investment in Jared Kushner's private equity firm (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-speech-saudi-backed-conference-miami/). Musk also gets to wear whatever he wants for similar reasons.
Ukraine doesn't have the same leverage as Saudi Arabia or India, which is why Zelensky needs to ramp up the flattery and build a better relationship with Trump. I agree that he shouldn't grovel, but even better-positioned leaders know how to play to Trump's ego. From the linked article above: "Mr Modi made several references to Mr Trump's Maga slogan – 'Make America Great Again' – and at one point suggested he would adopt his own version: 'It's Make India Great Again - Miga.'" Zelensky could've praised Trump while also projecting Ukrainian strength. For example, as I mentioned in the post, Ukraine now has the largest standing army in Europe (excluding Russia). That's a point he should've emphasized, instead of arguing that "during the war, everybody has problems." Contra Trump, Ukraine does actually have some good cards, but Zelensky didn't play them well in that meeting.
I can see your point and if Trump had been up for negotiations, I'd have thought it a solid one. However, you're also assuming that Zelensky had any chance of persuading Trump that night. I'm not convinced that he did or that any clothing choices would have made a difference.
https://www.frenchdispatch.eu/p/trump-ambush-zelenskyy-ukraine-russia-putin
https://researchingukraine.substack.com/p/us-oval-office-now-a-russian-fighting
https://substack.com/home/post/p-158242732
https://www.theconcis.com/p/vances-perfect-ambush-how-he-played (the bit before paywall)
It's possible that Zelensky was the victim of a pre-planned ambush. But none of those articles provide evidence for that scenario. Vance only launched his tirade after Zelensky questioned him. And Vance was not criticizing Ukraine when Zelensky interrupted him; he was criticizing Biden. I'm not refuting Zelensky's point that Putin is untrustworthy. But I am questioning the wisdom of Zelensky making that point in the manner he did.
The evidence is building that Trump is outright helping Putin. So I think an ambush is far from an unreasonable conclusion.
https://phillipspobrien.substack.com/p/weekend-update-123-the-week-the-usa
It’s fine to criticize Trump for being pro-Putin online. But if you’re the Ukrainian leader, your job is to use diplomacy to bring him closer to your own side. Is that a lost cause? I’m not so fatalistic. Trump supplied arms to Ukraine in his first term. He’s capable of shifting positions in response to incentives and pressure (eg, the recently postponed tariffs on Mexico and Canada). Maybe Ukraine can’t avoid an imposed cease-fire agreement at this stage, but it can still influence the shape of that agreement.
Though I certainly feel more fatalistic on the matter, I appreciate your point.
For all we know Zelenskyy wanted to offer all these things. But they never hit the nagotiation table to discuss them. Trump also didn't care about Zelenskyy's war clothes. Earlier in the interview he says:
> And I do like your clothing, by the way. You’re going to have to… I think he’s a great guy, by the way. I don’t know if you two like each other, but you know what? I think he’s a great guy.
This is spot on and it’s worth asking why Ben even needed to write it. Why did the political class not quickly focus on such a common sense view?
My theory: because the political system is dysfunctional to the point of paralysis, posturing and virtue signaling - on both sides of the aisle - has replaced meaningful action. Posing substitutes for politics.
What paralyzed the system? The staggering cost of election campaigns. Candidates self-censor to avoid alienating potential donors. This takes solutions to the country’s problems off the table. Unable to take meaningful action, politicians posture, affirm their moral superiority, and demonize their opponents to distract us from their failures.
And then elites wonder why the voters don’t trust them and the system loses its legitimacy.
www.savedemocracyinamerica.org