For those looking for the whole meeting (since I won't post the link), type "trump zelensky meeting fox 5 new york" into youtube, and you'll find the full 50 minute video.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, February 28, 2025 - 07:56 pm: Edit

The meeting did not go well, and was not a good look for either president. I don't know very many Trump supporters who are proud or happy with the result.

Zelensky wants the US to force Putin to pull out of every square inch of Ukraine including Crimea. Failing that, he wants the US and EU and NATO to keep sending money and weapons until Russia cracks (which is a longer messier path to the same result).

Putin wants a quarter of Ukraine territory, a permanent end to US-EU-NATO support for Ukraine, Zelensky removed from office, a pro-Russian Ukrainian installed, no chance of NATO membership for Ukraine, no chance of western troops on Ukrainian soil, and Ukraine to become so buddy-buddy with Russia that it might as well just be annexed outright. Which Russia would do after a few years.

Trump wants the war over because (1) war is bad and (2) war is expensive and (3) the danger of a bigger nastier more expensive war. Trump says he has to be "in the middle" or he can never get Putin to come to the table. Zelensky wants Trump and the US 100% on Ukraine's side (see above) to force Putin to come hat-in-hand and beg to be allowed to pull out the surviving Russian troops. Trump's theory is some kind of deal to give Russia some Ukrainian land and to give Ukraine some kind of security guarantee to make sure Russia doesn't annex Ukraine. Ukraine notes that this is the kind of security guarantee that the US gave South Vietnam when it forced a peace deal and pulled out US troops and ended the war. As soon as Congress pulled/pulls the plug, Vietnam/Ukraine got/gets gobbled up.

Where are we now? Options:
1. Trump agrees to fund the war until the Russians crack but at least gets some kind of audit.
2. Trump cuts off funding and Ukraine is forced into a Putin-esque deal.
3. Trump cuts off funding, the EU increases funding, and things go on until one side cracks or the war explodes or a new US president tries something different.
4. Zelensky accepts Trump's point of view; see #2.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, February 28, 2025 - 08:02 pm: Edit

As Commander-in-Chief (a term that is much older than the US and is used in many different contexts by many other countries) Trump can fire any soldier or promote any soldier, pretty much on his own, with two exceptions. As a practical matter, the president is too busy to keep track of lowly two-stars or even three-stars and delegates those assignments to the SecDef and the SecDef is too busy to bother with ... and so forth, until you get down to which privates become sergeants pretty much being delegated to captains, colonels, and sergeants-major. But in theory Trump could say "Private Smith is the grandson of my golf buddy and the kid has been in my house dozens of times and I really want him to be made a corporal." That probably wouldn't actually be done due to optics, but I could tell you that if I ever become president-dictator I'm going to promote Doug MacArthur to six-star and Tulsi Gabbard to full colonel.

Exception 1: Some military jobs take senate approval, such as the joint chiefs. One president once gave his favorite general command of NATO instead of chairman of the joint chiefs because the senate would not confirm him.

Exception 2: The highest rank in the US military is two-stars. Anything higher is a special temporary appointment, and congress at the very least has to approve the funding.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Friday, February 28, 2025 - 08:35 pm: Edit

At this point I suspect Russia is weak enough that determined effort by Europe should work.
IF they will be determined.
I also see little reason to not sell Europe weapons for cash.

Probably the best outcome at this point would for Europe and Ukraine to go it alone.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, February 28, 2025 - 08:45 pm: Edit

I would happily sell Ukraine weapons for cash, or for resource deals.

By Dana Madsen (Madman) on Friday, February 28, 2025 - 08:49 pm: Edit

Steve, you said "Zelensky wants to force Putin to pull out of every square inch of Ukraine...".

Zelensky has said multiple times over the past few months that he is willing to cede territory for a peace deal and he knows it's not realistic that his army can regain territory on their own.

I felt Zelensky was trying to say the following. "We signed a peace deal with Russia years ago, then a few years later they attacked us. We signed a second peace deal, then later they attacked us. We signed a third deal, and we've been attacked again." I feel Zelensky wants peace, he wants to end the deaths of his country's citizen's. But he doesn't want to sign a peace deal, where in a year or two, they get attacked again just as soon as Russia resets.

I felt they were talking past each other to some point. Zelensky feeling that the path it's currently going isn't going to be good enough, The US side not really caring about Zelensky's position and saying you need to take what you're going to get because we are done paying for it.

So how do they get there. How do they structure some deal that Ukraine can feel protects them from the next attack, but isn't NATO saying we'll shoot Russia if they attack. How do we keep from just going into your 4 options?

By Dana Madsen (Madman) on Friday, February 28, 2025 - 09:01 pm: Edit

I agree with Europe taking over 95% of responsibility. Preferably with US willing to provide weapon systems/ammunition paid for by others. I'd personally expect Canada to keep contributing. Australia, NZ, Japan and South Korea has provided support as well.

It would be nice, if the US doesn't want to keep going with military support, that they redirect some of the USAID support to humanitarian support.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, February 28, 2025 - 09:03 pm: Edit

What I heard from Zelensky today was he WANTS to win and push the Russians out. He specifically said he doesn't want Trump to be an honest broker but his 100% ally forcing Putin into a deal Zelensky would accept. Zelensky said he would cut a deal that included western troops PERMANENTLY on his soil. He is willing to give Putin tiny bits of land (but he would rather not give an inch), not what Trump was theorizing Putin would accept. Trump is trying to convince Zelensky to take a deal Zelensky hates. Let's see him force Putin into a deal Putin hates. If both sides hate it, then Trump did well.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Friday, February 28, 2025 - 10:11 pm: Edit

Just ugh. Russian information warfare strategy is to get people in the US to fight with each other so we will be less effective in opposing them.

They are succeeding beyond their wildest dreams.

If you are D or R, try to get your party to remember that.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, March 01, 2025 - 05:42 am: Edit

Zelenskyy showed up wearing gym clothes (or pajamas) which wasn't really respectful of the location. He was the first (but not the last) to blow his cool. He clearly walked into the room having already decided to reject Trump's idea and convince him to fight for a better deal.

That kind of bar room brawl is actually the way most diplomacy works. It just never happens in front of a camera.

All of this shows the ultimate failure: both staffs made the gigantic mistake of letting the bosses meet before the staffs worked out a mutually acceptable deal. Remember the summit meeting John Hacker flew to the Middle East for. Sir Humphrey handed him the final communique for the summit before the plane took off from Heathrow.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Saturday, March 01, 2025 - 07:17 am: Edit

The problem is that we shouldn't care about the question of who was rude to whom. None of it remotely compares to hunting civilians with drones, attacking Chernobyl with a drone, the Mariupol massacre, and so forth. Our focus needs to be on that. Instead we are fighting with each other. This is our own fault.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Saturday, March 01, 2025 - 07:20 am: Edit

Steve, those weren't gym clothes (or pajamas). They're the same type of outfit - drab shirt with Ukrainian logo, drab pants - that has been the most "dressed up" thing Zelenskyy has worn since the start of the war (he usually goes with an olive green fatigue t-shirt).

For the record, there's a photo of Winston Churchill visiting the White House during WWII where his outfit is roughly the same (the sole difference being that Churchill's drab shirt was a full button-up rather than a polo-style like Zelenskyy's). Neither man dressed up because in both cases their nations were fighting a war for their survival.

As to when things went south, it was a good 40 minutes in, when Vance decided - for whatever reason - to interject with a jab at Zelenskyy that amounted to a sarcastic "maybe try diplomacy" (regarding Putin), to which Zelenskyy replied with a recitation of the previous efforts at diplomacy between Ukraine and Russia that have ended with three agreements in a row broken by Russia. It all went downhill from there.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Saturday, March 01, 2025 - 07:31 am: Edit

Verybadcat: you're not wrong. Not one bit.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, March 01, 2025 - 10:03 am: Edit

Zelenskyy has worn suits to diplomatic meetings.

His choice to wear his “costume” may have been intended for domestic (Ukrainian) consumption.

Perhaps he assumed Trump is an empty suit (it is obvious many people saw Former president Biden that way.) and that the Oval office meeting was just a photo op.

Turns out, Zelenskyy was wrong.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Saturday, March 01, 2025 - 12:59 pm: Edit

I expect Taiwan crash starting a revival of their nuclear weapons program now. Australia have now also urgent reason to consider nukes too. And the choice of partner in their SSN program.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, March 01, 2025 - 02:07 pm: Edit

Our house - our rules. Ukraine is a western culture and should abide with our shared cultural norms when INVITED to the White House especially when the American taxpayer GENEROUSLY funded $350 BILLION toward their defense. Zelenskyy needs to put on a suit, be humble, and express great gratitude for our country's support when he is INVITED here!

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, March 01, 2025 - 02:33 pm: Edit

Fox News(seven days ago)

In a significant announcement, President Donald Trump has nominated Air Force Lt. Gen. Dan "Razin" Caine as the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Trump praised Caine as an exceptional pilot and national security expert, crediting him for his instrumental role in the rapid defeat of ISIS during his first term, claiming that it was accomplished in record time. Despite Caine's qualifications, Trump noted he was previously overlooked for promotion by the Biden administration. Alongside Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Trump aims to restore a focus on military strength and America First principles. The decision to appoint Caine comes with the departure of General Charles "CQ" Brown, whose leadership received commendation from both Trump…edit

I guess the newest standard of qualification for command is for an officer to be overlooked for promotion by the previous administration.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Saturday, March 01, 2025 - 02:57 pm: Edit

There was certainly one winner in yesterday's fiasco: Putin. And the Russians haven't been shy about their celebrating of that fact.

Jswile: Caine has, as I've noted before, never commanded anything larger than the 113th Maintenance Group. He is unqualified to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by both the letter and spirit of 10 USC 152. That said - and again, as I've noted before - the main interaction between Caine and President Trump was during his first term, when he made a point of donning a MAGA hat while in uniform during a visit to his unit by the president, and stating that he didn't care that it was a violation of the UCMJ. If we're going to be honest, that appears to be the standard of qualification by which he was selected.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Saturday, March 01, 2025 - 03:14 pm: Edit

Chuck, that's a good one. Yeah, in the past USA saw itself as beacon in the world holding the torch of freedom high. Embodying the values of democracy, free speech, human rights and freedom, it was an ally to many and had many allies. Now it's about blackmailing those it once helped, shared values and culture be ••••••. Although more correctly it has been a change in the values in white house, with the arrival of the new occupants.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Saturday, March 01, 2025 - 03:18 pm: Edit

Here is the transcript from the meeting:

"Zelenskyy: What kind of diplomacy, JD, are you are asking about? What do you mean?

Vance: I'm talking about the kind of diplomacy that ’s going to end the destruction of your country.

Zelenskyy: Yes, but if you...

Vance: Mr President, with respect, I think it ’s disrespectful for you to come to the Oval Office and try to litigate this in front of the American media. Right now, you guys are going around and forcing conscripts to the frontlines because you have manpower problems. You should be thanking the president.

Zelenskyy: Have you ever been to Ukraine to see the problems we have?

Vance: I've actually watched and seen the stories, and I know what happens is you bring people on a propaganda tour, Mr President.

Do you disagree that you've had problems with bringing people in your military, and do you think that it ’s respectful to come to the Oval Office of the United States of America and attack the administration that is trying to prevent the destruction of your country?

Zelenskyy: First of all, during the war, everybody has problems, even you. You have nice solutions and don't feel [it] now, but you will feel it in the future.

Trump: You don't know that. Don't tell us what we're going to feel. We're trying to solve a problem. Don't tell us what we're going to feel.

Zelenskyy: I am not telling you, I am answering...

Vance: That's exactly what you're doing...

Trump, raising his voice: You're in no position to dictate what we're going to feel. We're going to feel very good and very strong.

Zelenskyy tries to speak.

Trump: You right now are not in a very good position. You've allowed yourself to be in a very bad position. You don't have the cards right now. With us, you start having the cards.

You're gambling with lives of millions of people, you're gambling with world war three and what you're doing is very disrespectful to this country.

Vance: Have you said thank you once?

Zelenskyy: A lot of times.

Vance: No, in this meeting, this entire meeting? Offer some words of appreciation for the United States of America and the president who ’s trying to save your country.

Zelenskyy: Yes, you think that if you will speak very loudly about the war...

Trump: He ’s not speaking loud. Your country is in big trouble. No, no, you've done a lot of talking. Your country is in big trouble.

Zelenskyy: I know, I know.

Trump: You're not winning this. You have a •••• good chance of coming out OK, because of us.

Zelenskyy: We are staying strong from the very beginning of the war, we have been alone, and we are saying, I said, thanks.

Trump, speaking over Zelenskyy: You haven't been alone … We gave you military equipment. Your men are brave, but they had our military. If you didn't have our military equipment, this war would have been over in two weeks.

Zelenskyy: I heard it from Putin in three days.

Trump: It ’s going to be a very hard thing to do business like this.

Vance: Just say thank you.

Zelenskyy: I said it a lot of times.

Vance: Accept that there are disagreements and let ’s go litigate those disagreements rather than trying to fight it in the American media, when you're wrong. We know that you're wrong.

Trump: You're buried there. Your people are dying. You're running low on soldiers. No, listen... And then you tell us, "I don't want a ceasefire. I don't want a ceasefire. I want to go and I want this."

Trump: You're not acting at all thankful. And that ’s not a nice thing. I'll be honest, that ’s not a nice thing.

All right, I think we've seen enough. What do you think? Great television. I will say that."


It's from the Guardian. I tried post it last night but the BBS didn't work well then.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Saturday, March 01, 2025 - 03:39 pm: Edit

So, I wonder; was the whole thing staged by the Trump admin? "Great Television"...

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Saturday, March 01, 2025 - 05:40 pm: Edit

The fallout for RWM begins:

Norwegian fuel company Haltbakk Bunkers has announced it will cease supplying fuel to U.S. military forces in Norway and American ships docking in Norwegian ports, citing dissatisfaction with recent U.S. policy towards Ukraine. In a strongly worded statement, the company criticized a televised event involving U.S. President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance, referring to it as the “biggest s***show ever presented live on TV.”

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, March 01, 2025 - 06:03 pm: Edit

Cracks in NATO?

Guess Norway isn’t afraid of Russia or Putin.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Saturday, March 01, 2025 - 06:27 pm: Edit

Given the number of times that President Trump has publicly stated that The U.S. can not be relied on to defend NATO, what reason do they have to rely on the U.S.? President Trump's minimum amount to pay into defense has been a moving target, yes many of countries have not tried to keep any of them, particularly the farther away from Russia* that they are. He started with the 2.5% President Obama had NATO agree to, then 3%, now 5%. As to nuclear deterrence, France and the UK have more than enough capability to ruin Russia for a very long time. Given the erratic nature of this Administration, and it's willingness to quote Russian propaganda, (Ukraine started the war), Why would all of NATO trust the U.S. now?


*Yes I am aware that a small strip of Norway and Russia touch, in some of the worst weather and terrain on Earth to fight over.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Saturday, March 01, 2025 - 06:37 pm: Edit

Jswile: As David said, I suspect Norway has come to realize that the rest of NATO can't count on the U.S. anymore.