I read in a couple of places that when Trump was just a property thug in New York decades ago, the Russians tried to recruit him. I passed it off when I saw it, but it makes a certain amount of sense now.
He said Zelensky started the war, Zelensky was a dictator, and a couple of other things I thought were't consistent with his general mantra that Z should just have realised he was never going to win so should have "dealt" his way out of it.
Those two statements were straight from the Russian propaganda. Nobody in the west believes them. He shut off the second when prompted but why say it? Just to seed doubt in the West? Were they lifted from the intro to Putin's case? Russia has recruited plenty of key US figures since WW2.
--
The worst I saw in that interview, was that T, and Vance especially wanted Z to grovel. The initial question about wearing a suit looked like a plant.
T and V have forgotten that the invasion was wrong, and it was Putin.
The US has a
policy since Truman, post war 2,
That:
"it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures."[4] Truman contended that because totalitarian regimes coerced free peoples, they automatically represented a threat to international peace and the national security of the United States."
Problem 1, Truman was a Democrat and Trump chooses not to follow it. T would cite various conflicts including Korea, Vietnam, Afghan and others where an ordinary American might agree that the US should have kept out.
Let's face it, give an American a map and a pin to find those countries, or Ukraine for that matter...
Biden supported the Truman Doctrine, not least by giving (yes 84% giving, not lending ) materiel to Z.
Trump wants payback so constructed a mechanism incredibly advantageous to the US as a sham "opportunity" for Z, which would do nothing to stop Russia carrying on as before until Ukraine is gone.
Vance was an a-hole. Z has been thanking the US at every opportunity until into Trumps tenure, for what was Truman's policy, but V appears to have disregarded all of that and now sees Z as someone who owes the US and is therefore to fall over and be fleeced because he's in a weak position.
What I thought Z was going to say when T shouted him down was that T would feel bad in future when he sees Putin's expansion continue.
With hindsight, Z might have made T/V pause and give an answer on that - who did the big wrong here, was it Putin yes or no? But I don't think T cares either.
--
Europe has spent too long fannying about over its own politics since WW2 and is in a similarly weak position. If it wants to support Z, it will have to spend baby spend. That will have to be buying US arms at inflated "compensational" prices, because Europe doesn't have enough output.
If Europe builds new missile factories specifically to kill Russians, P might choose to bomb them, the case is easy.
Way forward? Kick the can down the road to a large extent. Resist in Ukraine with US largely defensive weapons bought by an Allied fund, with no more aggresive scope than has been provided so far. Ukraine will still be lost in the end, unless things change in Russia.
(Canada, Japan and others could contribute)
But meanwhile, build up Euro forces such that if any of those bordering states is invaded, there can be severe costs to Russia sufficient to deter.
Economically, Russia is weak, unless (?) supported by China.
That does mean a new Euro defence alliance. Maybe that goes /anti-Putin/anti-Kim Jong Un, or just Europe - hoping that the next US administrations are different,
(Trump only got ~50%) with better Euro contributions to Nato. Also, Europe is still
taking gas in large volume from Russia. That needs to be wound right down to reduce dollars going east. Imports of LNG gas from the US are also part of the picture.
What with? Drones. Thousands/millions of them. I've been bangin on about that for years. P will make them too, so ours will have to be better.
