I Blame Vance

autopsy of a debacle

A call for bezinning

We all saw the debacle that occurred in the oval office last week. Takes of various temperatures have been had on this. I could have jumped in immediately, but I think my perspective benefits from a healthy dose of some old fashioned Dutch bezinning (~contemplation, with the implication of a passage of time). Our culture would benefit if we all brought more bezinning in our life. This might raise our effective collective IQ by as much as a dozen points. Takes we have immediately are significantly less intelligent, but they are also the only ones that anyone can have until Trump does some other insane thing and the attention passes on to that. In this case, tariffs (again). But this blog is stronger than the media cycle. And we will give our bezinde take now.

The main liberal (bezinning-less) take was that the whole affair was an ambush by the Trump administration. With the benefit of bezinning, this theory baffles the mind. At several points during the interview Trump clearly de-escelates. One reporter—obviously looking to steer some shit—tries to provokes Zelenkyy by demanding he wears a suit. Trump leaves it to to Zelenkyy to defend himself initially. But in answering the next question he weaves in a defense of his guests’ fashion choices. It wouldn’t make sense to wait for the last question anyway to initiate your ambush

DONALD TRUMP: 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.¹

The worst (equally bezinning-less) counternarrative would be that Zelenkyy doesn’t want peace. That he was looking for a fight himself to look better to his people. or that he doesn’t want peace. But a narrative like that can’t deal with the verifiable fact that he ignored much clearer hooks to start a fight. In answering the very first question Trump claimed Putin was the victim of the “Russia hoax”. Zelenkyy let that slip by. As he did with several instances where Trump talked about “both sides” of the conflict as if there were some sort of symmetry there. You would only do that if you believed you could get something better out of this deal.

I think my take benefits from bezinning.

Setting the stage

I’m not Russian, so I will not start my account with Prince Rurik’s 862 visit to Novogorod. Instead I will cut straight to the state of play on that faithful day:

Russia is occupying approximately one fourth of Ukraine’s territory. Ukraine is valiantly fighting back. The United States and Europe have been supporting the latter. The United States is now trying to broker a peace deal. Trump has invited Zelenkyy to the white house to discuss a deal to sell minerals.

United States’ position
The Trump administration has repeatably stressed the importance of achieving peace. There are geopolitical concerns here; they have stressed the risk of nuclear escalation. But the primarily motivation is obviously domestic. Trump campaigned on acchieving peace in Ukraine. Trump’s legecy relies on fulfilling that promise. What they are not concerned about are any of the details of the peace deal. If the States can end the war by freeing none of the Ukrainians they would. If they can do it by freeing none of the Ukrainians, they would, If they could do it by freeing none of the Ukrainians they would. If they could end the war by freeing some of the Ukrainians and leeving others under Russian occupatyion, they would. Hence their unpredictable switching back and forth between pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian diplomatic acts.

The leverage to do this comes from America’s ongoing aid to Ukraine. In Trump’s mind this leverage is nearly absolute. Because he thinks America provide the vast majority of aid. This is why he thinks he can broker a deal with Putin with very little involvement from Ukraine. But to continue that aid he needs an excuse, because his entire base is convinced that the aid is a useless giveaway. This mineral deal is supposed to make it worth it. It is therefore imperative for the Trump admin that it gets signed.

Ukraine’s position
The ultimate goal of Ukraine is simply the survival of their country. I suspect that Zelenkyy would take a land for peace deal, although he has not openly stated this for obvious diplomatic and morale related reasons. But one thing that they will not give up on is their need for security guarantees From their viewpoint a peace without security guarantees is no peace at all. America is now saying they want to take the initiative in negotiations. This is probably fine from Ukraine’s perspective. As long as America is taking their one demand into account

The buildup

Usually you hold a press conference after you sign a agreement (I wonder why!). One was planned that day, but Trump takes so many questions in the pre-signing photo-op that it practically turns into one on its own.

When speaking to the public both parties need to convince the people in their respective countries that this deal is going to be worth it. For the United States that means emphasizing how this deal is going to lead to an end to the fighting.

DONALD TRUMP: No, I’m in the middle. I want to solve this thing. I’m for both. I want to get it solved. And it’s wonderful to speak badly about somebody else, but I want to get it solved. If we can solve it, great. If we can’t solve it, they’re going to have to fight it out. And who knows what’s going to happen? But I want to see it get solved.

For Zelenkyy it’s important to stress that America is still on his side, even in light of recent events. So that it makes sense to give away minerals for them for essentially nothing but the pinky promise the help them in the future.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY: I think that the United States is on our side from the very beginning of occupation, and I think that President Trump is on our side. And of course, I’m sure that United States president will not stop support. This is crucial for us, it’s important for us. Yes, and Putin, the president speaks about the people and the soldiers which are dying, but they came to our territory, they came to our land, they began this war and they have to stop. And I think this is the question, really the most important question: can President Trump, I hope yes, with some other allies, stop Putin, withdraw these enemies and withdraw these troops from our land? And I think that you asked about the history – I think that if President, or when he will stop Putin, if President Trump will bring peace to our country, I think he will be on this wall in time.

And of course it is essential to him to convince his people that this deal is going to lead to security guarantees down the line. However, Trump is making it very hard for him. Repeatedly, he implies that the mineral deal alone will suffice to maintain the peace.

DONALD TRUMP:…lot of oil and we have a lot of gas. We have a lot, but we don’t have rare earth. So this has just about every component of the rare earth that we need for computers, for all of the things we do. It puts us in great shape. I think they’re going to have great luck. I think once we make the agreement, that’s going to be 95% of it. They’re not going to go back to fighting. I’ve spoken with President Putin and I think, I mean, I feel very strong. I’ve known him for a long time and I feel very strongly that they’re very serious about it.

Everyone’s talking about security. I said let me make the deal first. I have to make the deal first. I don’t worry about security right now. We have to have a deal because right now last week 2,000 soldiers died on both sides. They’re losing 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 a week.

…

DONALD TRUMP: I don’t want to talk about security yet because I want to get the deal done. You know, you fall into the same trap like everybody else. A million times you said over and over, I want to get the deal done. Security is so easy. That’s about 2 percent of the problem. I’m not worried about security. I’m worried about getting the deal done. The security is the easy part. Security is very nice. Everybody stops shooting. And now when Europe put people there—I know France is going to. I know the U.K. is going to. I know other countries are going to, and they happen to be right next door. We haven’t committed, but we could conceivably. You know, we have security in a different form. We’ll have workers there digging, digging, digging, taking the raw earth² so that we can create a lot of great product in this country. So, in that sense, you have something. But we haven’t determined that yet. I will say, in speaking to France and in speaking to—and they were here, as you know, last week and just the other day—they have committed to a lot of security. I don’t think you’re going to need much security. I think once this deal gets done, it’s over. Russia is not going to want to go back, and nobody is going to want to go back. When this deal ends, I really believe this deal is going to be over.

This is putting Zelenskyy in an awkward position. He needs more than just the deal. Securities aren’t “2 percent of the problem” for him, they are 90 percent of the problem. Confronting Trump on this will introduce tension, but he has to do it if he wants to be taken seriously by his people.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY: About security guarantees and about ceasefire. We can’t just speak about ceasefire and speak and speak. It will not work. Ceasefire will never work because I’m the president with this experience, and not only me. Ukraine, before my presidency, from 2014, Putin broke agreements 25 times. 25 times he broke his own signature. 25 times he broke ceasefire. But he never broke to me. He never broke to me.

DONALD TRUMP: No, no, you were the president.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY: He never broke to me. In 2016, you’ve been the president, Mr. President. You’ve been the president, but he had, of course, not with you, but he had during those period, he had conversations with our side and we had Normandy format, you know, with France, Germany, Ukraine, and Russia, and he broke agreements 25 times. That’s why we will never accept just ceasefire. It will not work without security guarantees.

Security guarantees, maybe president is right about this document and other, but this document is not enough… [6 more paragraphs were he goes into detail]

If Trump wanted to ambush Zelenskyy, he could have done it right here. Instead he responds with the “I’m in the middle” quote from above.

The climax

Just as President Trump is about ready to go to the last question, the Vice President decides he has something to say.

[J.D. VANCE]: Hey, I would respond to this. So look, for four years, the United States of America, we had a president who stood up at press conferences and talked tough about Vladimir Putin. And then Putin invaded Ukraine and destroyed a significant chunk of the country. The path to peace and the path to prosperity is maybe engaging in diplomacy. We tried the pathway of Joe Biden of thumping our chest and pretending that the president of the United States’ words mattered more than the president of the United States’ actions. What makes America a good country is America engaging in diplomacy. That’s what President Trump is doing.

This might be the dumbest thing said in this entire interview. Actions speak louder than words, therefore… we’re going to speak to Putin instead of sending weapons? That’s the opposite!

Zelenskyy is looking at this and wondering if he’s still getting a security guarantees out of this, so he asks the question:

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY: OK, So he occupied our parts, big parts of Ukraine, parts of East and Crimea. So he occupied it in 2014. So during a lot of years, I’m not speaking about Joe Biden, but those time was Obama, then President Obama, then President Trump, then President Biden, now President Trump. And God bless. Now President Trump will stop him. But during 2014, nobody stopped him. He just occupied and took. He killed people. You know what the contact in 2015, 2014. So how is that?

[J.D. VANCE]: Yeah. Exactly right. Yes.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY: But during 2014 till 2022, this was the situation – the same that people have been dying on the contact line. Nobody stopped him. You know that we had conversations with him, a lot of conversation, my bilateral conversation. And we signed with him, me, like a new president in 2019. I signed with him the deal. I signed with him, Macron and Merkel. We signed ceasefire. All of them told me that he will never go. We signed with him a gas contract. But after that, he broke the ceasefire. He killed our people and he didn’t exchange prisoners. We signed the exchange of prisoners, but he didn’t do it. What kind of diplomacy, J.D., are you speaking about? What do you mean?

Right now, there is a wide consensus that asking this question was a grave mistake. And retrospectively you could indeed say that it was. But prospectively that’s not as clear. Firstly, he already asked an equally confrontational question earlier, and that turned out fine. Secondly, he’s directing this to the Vice President, whose only power it is to break ties in the senate. Zelenkyy and Trump are both talking as Presidents, peers. Even if the United States is a higher status country, Vance has a lower status as an individual. Zelenskyy is purposefully not directing this to the President, he even included a quick compliment in there. Let’s see how JD responds:

[J.D. VANCE]: I’m talking about the kind of diplomacy that’s going to end the destruction of your country.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY: Yes.

[J.D. VANCE]: But Mr. President, Mr. President, with respect…

[J.D. VANCE]: I think it’s disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office, try to litigate this in front of the American media. Right now, you guys are going around and forcing conscripts to the front lines because you have manpower problems. You should be thanking the president for trying to bring it into this country.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY: Did you say what problems we have?

[J.D. VANCE]: I have been to Ukraine.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY: How much?

[J.D. VANCE]: I have actually, I’ve actually watched and seen the stories and I know what happens is you bring people, you bring them on a propaganda tour, Mr. President. Do you disagree that you’ve had problems bringing people into your military? And do you think that it’s disrespectful 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?

There are a million de-escelatory ways for Vance to respond. He could have backed down, or he could have explained why he thought Trump’s diplomacy would have ended the destruction of Ukraine. Instead he chose the pathway of insulting Ukraine. Something he must have known would torpedoed the deal. And remember: signing this deal is the administration’s goal right now. He accuses Zelensky of “attacking the administration” and “litigating this in front of the American media”, when that’s exactly what he himself is doing. Going as far as accusing Zelenkyy of organizing “propaganda tours”. He also transforms the question from being directed at him personally to being about the entire administration. This ensured that Trump had to respond, lest his reputation be harmed. But I really do not want to focus on him. Instead I will train your attention on the cases where Zelenkyy tries to de-escalete, while Vance tries to stoke things even harder.

[J.D. VANCE]: Have you said thank you once in this entire meeting? No. In this entire meeting, have you said thank you? You went to Pennsylvania and campaigned for the opposition in October, all for some words of appreciation for the United States of America and the President who’s trying to save your country.

…

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY: Mr. President, we are seeing in our country things drawn from the very beginning of the war. We’ve been alone and we are thankful. I said thanks in this cabinet.

…

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY: Can I just say thank you? I said it a little bit.

[J.D. VANCE]: Except that there are disagreements and let’s go litigate those disagreements rather than trying to fight it out in the American media when you’re wrong. We know that you’re wrong.

…

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY: I want a cease fire.

Post-mortem

The deal fell through. This is disastrous for Ukraine, but let’s not forget that it’s also disastrous for the Trump administration. They relied on this deal just as much to see their goal accomplished. If it’s less of a problem fro them, that’s only because America is a bigger country with more than one issue to care about.

So why did Vance do it? I have one simple answer: administrations are abstractions. They are staffed by individuals, and those individuals have their own agenda that does not always line up with that of the administration at large. Marco Rubio for example would have liked to continue to pursue a Ukraine strategy that is as hawkish—if not more—than that of the Biden admin. Vance on the other hand: I’m not so sure he would want to help Ukraine at all. Given the intellectual circles he swims in I wonder if he doesn’t feel more kinship towards Putin’s form of government than Ukraine’s democracy. Blowing up this deal could be a positive on his book. Regardless, he got a nice photo op out of it to ramp up to his presidential campaign.

Afterwards, Zelenkyy went on a European tour. This was a good move. In the middle of the spat, Trump asserted that he doesn’t have the cards. If Zelenskyy goes on to immediately beg for a new deal from Trump he is is in an extremely precarious position. His actions would communicate that Trump was right and he really doesn’t have the cards. And that Trump can basically ask for whatever deal he likes and you have no choice to sign them. You go to Europe to show that you do have at least some cards. And that even without the states the fight will go on. Of course you will come back to Washington later, but with some leverage at least.

1. I’m using this transcript for this post

2. I could have included a [sic] here but I refuse. I sweat that ninety percent of “[sic]” usages I see have nothing to do with resolving ambiguity and are just passive aggressive ways dunks. I for one sneer at that catty behavior.