Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

We have to separate his goals as a politician and his need for righteousness.

Trump gave him clear wins in his previous statements prior to the outburst. He committed to continued weaponry but emphasized he'd prefer the fighting to stop. He committed to NATO. He committed to getting back as much of the land, or more than you'd think, all clear progress from his previous statements and position in prior weeks.

Remember, the Mineral deal was already agreed upon. Trump, in my view, was being gracious and gave him additional wins. Had Zelensky taken those wins, NOT added an a whole unnecessary unprovoked debate with Vance, he would've ended that first meeting with those wins, EVEN with all that he said prior to the blow-up, some of which was already ungracious from Trump's perspective.

After the signing at the 2nd press conference he could've went into his whole need of security guarantees to protect their now mutual interests. He could've asked Trump to help him build "a big beautiful wall" to protect from the vicious x, y, and z, and still iterated, strongly to the press and world his needs, perspective, etc.

That's how a politician should've operated. Got there, carried out agreement which gives Trump face to his followers, taken the additional wins, and after all set, broadcast his views strongly and respectfully to the world, setting up a clear pathway to additional security in the future.

Win, win, win.

Instead he got none of that, and may even lose the current funding and support they were getting as Trump is still Trump and will likely want to extract some pain for his perceived slights.

Objectively, from a political perspective, we can see the outcome wasn't great, especially compared to the version of events that was being setup prior to the unnecessary confrontation.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: