Trump-Zelenskyy clash marks a defining turn away from U.S. defense of democracies
Trump-Zelenskyy clash marks a defining turn away from U.S. defense of democracies
Analysis: The confrontation revealed Trump’s deep impatience with Ukraine and its democratically elected president, and his persistent defense of Russia’s autocratic ruler.
Summary
A dramatic Oval Office confrontation between Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy underscored Trump’s hostility toward Ukraine and preference for negotiating with Russia.
Unlike past presidents who handled tense exchanges with allies privately, Trump and JD Vance berated Zelenskyy on camera, siding with Russia over a democratic ally.
This marked a break from decades of bipartisan U.S. policy that prioritized supporting democracies for stability and economic benefits.
Republicans largely praised Trump's stance, while Democrats and European leaders firmly backed Ukraine. The meeting ended with Zelenskyy being asked to leave after warning that Putin would eventually attack NATO countries.
You're viewing a single thread.
-
From the article...
Previous American presidents have had plenty of tense exchanges with allies, but often in private and never like this.
What made this one different was not just that it unfolded with cameras rolling, but that it featured an American president siding with an autocratic and longtime adversary, Russia, against a nascent democracy that has struggled for years to break away from Moscow’s orbit and join the NATO alliance of Western democracies.
-
Its dangerous and we shouldn't allow this presidency to continue. Next thing we know we'll be crushing other democratic nations with the autocracies until the whole world is enslaved.
-
Isnt that the plan though? I think Trump is being pretty open about it.
-
and we shouldn’t allow this presidency to continue.
There are legal safeguards for that built-in.
If you're not just being hyperbolic (or astroturfing for anarchy), and there is some truth to what you're saying, at some point those safe guards will kick in.
And just because they haven't kicked in yet doesn't mean they won't kick in later.
-
Could you be more specific? Because the only safeguard I'm aware of is impeachment and removal, which requires both chambers of Congress to act against Trump and I just don't believe that's going to happen while Republicans control both chambers and impeachment certainly isn't going to "kick in" as if it's some automatic process.
So I'm genuinely curious about what's got you so optimistic
-
Because the only safeguard I’m aware of is impeachment and removal, which requires both chambers of Congress to act against Trump and I just don’t believe that’s going to happen while Republicans control both chambers and impeachment certainly isn’t going to “kick in” as if it’s some automatic process.
I believe you're incorrect, I believe Congress at some point will act, and that's what I was speaking of. Even a Republican lead one.
You're seeing some split by Republicans, objecting to how Zelensky was treated yesterday at the White House, and up to now you hadn't seen any division whatsoever.
At some point they'll act, if it got to that point.
So I’m genuinely curious about what’s got you so optimistic
Oh I'm definately not optimistic, it's going to be a long three years and tenish months, that's for sure.
I'm just not hyperbolic about it.
-
Some Republicans also spoke out against J6 before they all decided it was a regular tourist visit and the violent mob were all political prisoners.
Let's see how they feel about this debacle in a week.
-
Well if the pressure is left off they're go back into 'Golum' mode, clutching their precious ring (job/money/power).
But if Trump accidentally or otherwise tries to take their ring away from them, things will change.
-
-
The last safe guard is the second amendment. I hope enough liberals will realise that in time.
-
The last safe guard is the second amendment.
That's something to discuss when we're way closer to 100%, authoritanism, and not 0%.
I hope enough liberals will realise that in time.
You realize there are liberals that own guns, right?
-
You will never get to a breaking point. It's cooking frogs from here all the way to a holocaust.
-
The boiling toad in the pot scenario is a real danger, but I think things would come to a head before that.
-
The last few times this happened, it didn't.
-
The boiling toad in the pot scenario is a real danger, but I think things would come to a head before that.
The last few times this happened, it didn’t.
I think we're marking "would come to a head" at different places on the scale.
-
-
-
-
There liberal comment was literally because they have guns also that they hope they will act on the 2nd to save us. For someone correcting everyone you sure are misinterpreting a lot.
Also we are not close to 0%. I'd say at least >30% by made up metrics. Congress will not act, too many maga. Scotus just proved with their stay of USAID that they will back Trump. Vance openly said no one can enforce the Judicial as the US Marshals are under the executive. It's bleak.
-
There liberal comment was literally because they have guns also that they hope they will act on the 2nd to save us.
Well the stereotype is that liberals dont' have guns. /shrug
For someone correcting everyone you sure are misinterpreting a lot.
So, we're not allot to disagree with others here on Lemmy? Just read, and move on?
Otherwise, one persons correction is another persons disagreement and discussion.
Also we are not close to 0%. I’d say at least >30% by made up metrics.
Not that I agree with the made-up 30% number, but I don't think its time to call for everyone to know where their guns are at at 30%.
Congress will not act, too many maga.
Congress will not act YET.
If you can say anything about Congress, they REALLY care about themselves and their money and their jobs. The second Trump risks any of those, things will be afoot at the Circle K, regardless of MAGA.
Scotus just proved with their stay of USAID that they will back Trump.
That's not how SCOTUS works, with it comes with temporary stays. There's been times when they've stayed something, then did the exact opposive when hearing the case formally.
Vance openly said no one can enforce the Judicial as the US Marshals are under the executive. It’s bleak.
I'll definately give you this one. No VP of either party should ever say something like that. And the non-supreme courts will pimp-slap him back in line.
Having said that, that bluster without action is < 30%. They're doing allot of 'rope-a-dope' as well as actions. Judge on the actions, not on the words.
-
-
-
-
-
-
No, there really aren't. Every single one has been systematically dismantled already.
-
No, there really aren’t. Every single one has been systematically dismantled already.
Hard disagree. We're way far away from that being true.
-
-
I truly believe we need to do what the Civil Rights movement did. Bonus points if you bring tents and camp out for the double whammy strike.
-
Protesting is always good. It gives voice to those who don't have access to media to show their displeasure, and shows other like-minded people that they are not alone.
-
-
-
-