This just isn't true. He had been publicly stating that there needed to be security guarantees for weeks before the meeting. Also, perhaps if Ukraine had been involved in the prior "peace talks" he would have had an opportunity to state this directly to the US administration.
I have to say that while that world view may be misguided, and certainly is not a worldview Europeans would agree with, it is nonetheless a rational view, and is almost certainly correct in that Russia alone is not a serious threat to the US, and won't be in the medium term at least (it can barely win in Ukraine, to think it could win against NATO and then go on to take the US is just delusional).
This is a completely bonkers take. You actually expected him to sign over an absurd mineral commitment with no agreed benefit for Ukraine? Just toss Ukraine up on the table to be sliced up by the US and Russia?
The US hasn't been remotely isolationist since at least the start of the 20th century. Once industrialization made the world small, isolationism became a myth. It's just a phrase used by people who want to shirk their duty.
Yes because that’s what they agreed to in advance of the meeting. The in person meeting, requested by Zelensky, was supposed to be a photo op. But he unwisely tried to steer it into a different direction and ended up losing the whole thing.
> Just toss Ukraine up on the table to be sliced up by the US and Russia?
Yes that’s traditionally what happens to the losers in a conflict. Ukraine does not have the money, guns, or soldiers to win this thing, doublely so without the USA.
Their end state in this is not going to be some pre war border as a NATO state. It’ll be losing land, losing mineral rights, and at best third party non-NATO peacekeepers manning a DMZ.
False. No such agreement existed.
https://www.barrons.com/news/ukraine-has-agreed-on-terms-of-...
Zelenski indicated that he was willing to sign a deal if there are security guarantees. He was then presented a "deal" with no such guarantees in it. Your statements are simply false.
Vague platitudes are not a security guarantee.
Did you even read your own link?
>> Ukraine has agreed on the terms of a minerals deal with the United States and could sign it as early as Friday on a trip to Washington by President Volodymyr Zelensky, a senior Ukrainian official said.
And then later on:
>> The source said the draft of the deal includes a reference to "security", but does not explicitly set out the United States's role.
He agreed to the deal without any explicit guarantees. Told them he'd sign in in the USA. Then after he got here, he demanded additional things that were not part of the already agreed upon deal.
Yes, and I even directly quoted it for you.
He agreed to the deal without any explicit guarantees.
Absolutely false, as has been explained to you already. Stop with the disinformation.
The US made vague statements about a security guarantee with nothing specific. That's not what Zelenski was open to.
That’s never been disputed by Ukraine and there are multiple US sources claiming that they had come to that agreement. The only formality was actually signing it and Zelensky said he wanted to do it at the Whitehouse.
Otherwise why was he in the USA? One doesn’t fly halfway around the world for a photo op if there’s no deal in place. And there’s no record of the USA ever offering explicit security guarantees. Only the opposite.
What actually likely happened is that Democrats who met with Zelensky right before the meeting with Trump and Vance, like Chris Murphy, pressured or convinced Zelensky to reject the deal. This is disputed by the Democrats. So maybe it was something else - like simply a last minute impulsive choice by Zelensky. Either way it was unexpected that he would change his mind and would lead the event in a different direction.
As for “no agreed benefit” - the benefit was continued US support in the short term until a peace is negotiated. After all this conflict has costed America something like 200 billion. European countries are not only providing less useful help to Ukraine, but also are extending loans rather than grants. But for American taxpayers this is a huge expense adding to the dangers of a debt spiral.
False:
Ukraine had asked for security guarantees from the US as part of any agreement.
The source said the draft of the deal includes a reference to "security", but does not explicitly set out the United States's role.
"There is a general clause that says America will invest in a stable and prosperous sovereign Ukraine, that it works for a lasting peace, and that America supports efforts to guarantee security."
There was no "deal". There was a contract where Ukraine would sign over minerals with nothing but vague platitudes. Ukraine has already been through that with Russia and denuclearization.
Source: https://www.barrons.com/news/ukraine-has-agreed-on-terms-of-...
After all this conflict has costed America something like 200 billion.
False:
To date, we have provided $66.5 billion in military assistance since Russia launched its premeditated, unprovoked, and brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, and approximately $69.2 billion in military assistance since Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014. We have now used the emergency Presidential Drawdown Authority on 55 occasions since August 2021 to provide Ukraine military assistance totaling approximately $31.7 billion from DoD stockpiles.
Source: https://www.state.gov/bureau-of-political-military-affairs/r...
European countries are not only providing less useful help to Ukraine, but also are extending loans rather than grants.
False:
Since the start of the war, the EU and our Member States have made available close to $145 billion in financial, military, humanitarian, and refugee assistance, of which 65% have been provided as grants or in-kind support and 35% in the form of highly concessional loans.*
Source: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/united-states-america...
But for American taxpayers this is a huge expense
False. The US GDP is nearly $30 trillion. Our military spending is nearly $1 trillion. This is a drop in the bucket to support an ally and defend democracy from an aggressive dictator. Additionally, our aid allows us to dispose of old armaments that are otherwise costly to destroy, and our aid to Ukraine comes with long-term purchasing agreements for American weaponry.
You are simply repeating disinformation.
> False: > To date, we have provided $66.5 billion in military assistance since Russia launched its premeditated, unprovoked, and brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, and approximately $69.2 billion in military assistance since Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014. We have now used the emergency Presidential Drawdown Authority on 55 occasions since August 2021 to provide Ukraine military assistance totaling approximately $31.7 billion from DoD stockpiles.
There’s a lot of editorialization here. But Russia was provoked. By NATO expansionism as well as the illegal coup in 2014 in Ukraine, which basically denied voting rights for the half of Ukraine that supported relations with Russia.
As for the numbers - your numbers are misleading because they’re only about part of the what’s been set aside overall, which is indeed around 200 billion.
> False. The US GDP is nearly $30 trillion. Our military spending is nearly $1 trillion. This is a drop in the bucket to support an ally and defend democracy from an aggressive dictator. Additionally, our aid allows us to dispose of old armaments that are otherwise costly to destroy, and our aid to Ukraine comes with long-term purchasing agreements for American weaponry.
It’s not a drop in the bucket. It is a huge amount to anyone. It can be used in many other ways. They aren’t just “old armaments” - a lot of this equipment is still in service, usable in war, and at least can be sold to generate income and help taxpayers or pay off debt. Also Ukraine is not an ally.
No, there isn't.
But Russia was provoked. By NATO expansionism
NATO is a purely defensive pact. This propaganda that you're spewing is nonsensical, and directly from Putin's mouth.
US's underlying line is to be isolationist, see other comments here. "Duty" to be world police LOL
Even Reagan had the right mind in this aspect