Main Edition
US
FR
September 23, 2024 - 4:00pm
Volodymyr Zelensky has openly criticised J.D. Vance, calling Donald Trump’s running mate “too radical” in his approach to the war in Ukraine.
“I don’t take Vance’s words seriously, because, if this were a plan, then America is headed for global conflict,” the Ukrainian President said in an interview with the New Yorker on Sunday. “This kind of scenario would have no basis in international norms, in U.N. statute, in justice. And it wouldn’t necessarily end the war, either. It’s just sloganeering.”
Zelensky also dismissed Vance’s suggestion that the peace process, led by Ukraine, Russia, and the Europeans, could involve a demilitarised zone in Ukrainian territories seized by Russia, rather than a full return of lost territories. Under this plan, Ukraine would remain independent but could not join Nato, and the demilitarised zone would be heavily fortified to prevent further Russian invasions. This would be an “awful idea”, warned Zelensky.
The Ukrainian President has previously taken care to speak diplomatically about Donald Trump, and continued to do so throughout the New Yorker interview. He downplayed past allegations that Trump, as president, had threatened to curtail US aid if the country didn’t investigate Hunter Biden. The incident “no longer feels as relevant”, he said. “That was a long time ago.” Zelensky also claimed Trump had been positive towards him and pledged continued American support during phone calls.
He did not, however, mask his displeasure with Trump’s vice-presidential pick. “If this were a plan, then America is headed for global conflict,” Zelensky said. “It will involve Israel, Lebanon, Iran, Taiwan, China, as well as many African countries.” He added that those who propose such plans “should be held responsible for potentially starting a global war”.
Vance has been a longtime critic of US support for the war in Ukraine, and his suggestions that Ukraine cede land to Russia in pursuit of peace long predate his vice-presidential candidacy. In 2023, when proposing the US fund Israel’s war and not Ukraine, he explained his stance by arguing: “Israel has an achievable objective. Ukraine does not.”
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIt’s also worth noting how unusual, and, in my opinion, inappropriate, it is for foreign leaders to directly comment on candidates for a US federal election.
Indeed. This unusualness and inappropriateness may portend more and worse decision-making on the part of Ukraine’s ‘president’. After all, he is a cornered cat, and with every Russian advance, his personal fortunes and those of his regime grow more precarious.
I wonder when cooler, wiser heads will step in, realise that having such a man in charge is a hazard not only to Ukraine, but to the safety and security of the world. Perhaps he will be quietly removed before he does something really inappropriate?
Putin has also weighed in, to be fair. On Harris’ side.
I also saw this. Putin knows he can eat Harris for breakfast. Bring out the popcorn.
So true.
“a cornered cat” Maybe when Trump wins, JD should invite him over for talks on the peace process in Springfield.
Justice for the Barbecued Cats!
Partly because Zelenskyy has to pretend that a peace proposal that involves Ukraine getting everything it wants cannot be reconciled with Vance’s but mainly, I suppose, because Zelenskyy expects Harris to win.
So once again Ukraine is colluding with democrats to influence Amrican elections.
Zelensky runs the world’s largest money laundering operation. He is welcome to phuck off.
Are you paid, or do you really believe it?
‘ “Let Mr. Vance read up on the history of the Second World War, when a country was forced to give part of its territory to one particular person.’
Zelensky is fighting so that Sevastopol can become a NATO base.
I would suggest he’s a tad unwise to be openly critical of the likely next VPOTUS.
It is odd for a foreign leader to say something like this, although even among Trump supporters, Vance is probably viewed as a poor pick for VP.
JD Vance is an excellent pick. He’s the embodiment of the American Dream.
Umm. He is a bit of a flip-flopping skeeze. Trump could have done much better. I don’t even trust Vance. He’ll blow where the wind takes him. However, I have no choice. I do value my freedom. Bill Gates is donating heavily to Harris and doesn’t believe in the first amendment. Google as well.
It is the American Dream to sell one’s soul to a despot? Who knew?
Zelensky clearly is stupid. Why would anyone make any statement about any politician just weeks from an election. Should Trump win – and there’s an increasing chance he will – Zelensky’s going to have to do a lot of tap dancing. Stupid man.
He might be worried about either the new Dem or GOP administration. Alternatively, the reports of a split between Sullivan and Blinken on the British/French missiles suggests that with Biden gone then Mrs Nuland will get to cast the deciding vote. Can’t see her going for direct war with Russia though – her whole fiefdom would be destroyed.
On every level, Putin actually must want Harris. He knows she won’t wage war against him. He knows that. Whereas, I don’t think he knows exactly what Trump might do.
Nuland was supposed to have retired months ago (about 20 years too late to prevent millions of deaths in the Forever Wars she and her ilk initiated). Is she still running the show from some university or neocon think-tank?
The fact is that Ukraine has been a dysfunctional and corrupt country. The only reason the US supports their war is to deter Russian expansion. Otherwise, we don’t give a s…
Zelensky would do well to stay out of the Presidential election, otherwise he may be left to dangle in the wind.
The thing is, Zelenskyy is right.
I say this as a two-time (soon the be three-time) Trump voter who mostly approves of MAGA policies. I want the United States to carry less of the burden for faraway countries’ defense… and yet, at the same time, after decades of encouraging weakness and dependency among foreign allies (including by staging the 2004 and 2014 coups that inflamed the pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine) the United States can’t just suddenly remove its support without making the world a more dangerous place.
This is a topic I’ve written about repeatedly on my own substack, trying to get people to come around to the idea that, while recent foreign policy is full of mistakes, just saying “They’re freeloaders and it’d be better if we cut them loose” is not the way to fix it.
https://twilightpatriot.substack.com/p/the-poland-paradox
https://twilightpatriot.substack.com/p/putins-war-at-ten-months
JD Vance may be suggesting we suddenly remove our support and cut Ukraine loose. It’s hard to say what he has in mind.
But Donald Trump does not say that. His idea is not a plan for peace, but a process. He suggests talking to Volodymyr Zelensky and Vladimir Putin to negotiate an end to the war. He intentionally refrains from giving a plan for peace.
Those negotiations may fail. They did with Kim Jong Un. But they still should take place. Wars end through negotiation. Time we got started. That’s all Donald Trump wants to do.
‘He suggests talking to Volodymyr Zelensky and Vladimir Putin to negotiate an end to the war. He intentionally refrains from giving a plan for peace.’
I think Trump has handled this very well, starting negotiations even if the war is ongoing is no bad thing.
I agree with unherd readers post, some American and UK foreign policy had holes in it.
But we can’t abandon wars or allies without making the world a more dangerous place than it already is.
Good point. I agree with you that the United States should not abandon allies, but Ukraine is not an ally. Sadly, I don’t think we can afford to get involved in wars halfway around the world that aren’t direct threats to us. Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq showed the wisdom of George Washington’s words about the dangers of foreign entanglements centuries ago.
The Ukraine-Russia war is not a simple dispute, raising lots of complex questions. Should Crimea go back to Ukraine, for example? Or should it stay with Russia? On balance I think it would be better for Crimea to stay with Russia, but it’s a tough, tough issue.
The case of Taiwan is not simple either. It’s been US policy for 45 years that Taiwan is not an independent country but is part of the People’s Republic of China. The United Nations and the vast majority of countries around the world take the same position. How then can we interfere if China takes over Taiwan?
In situations like these taking a position based on abstract principle rarely works well. Much better to try to find a way to peace through negotiation and trial-and-error. Neville Chamberlain’s efforts to secure “peace for our time” turned out a failure, but he had the right idea.
I have to agree with Marcus Tullius Cicero, who said two millenia ago, “As for me, I cease not to advocate peace. It may be on unjust terms, but even so it is more expedient than the justest of civil wars.”
“On balance I think it would be better for Crimea to stay with Russia, but it’s a tough, tough issue“. Exactly. Why should the people there be free? Far better that they live under the regime of a tyrannical warmonger.
Because that’s quite probably what they want. We don’t know.
Yes we do. The people of Crimea voted overwhelmingly to be part of the Russian Federation in 2014. Of course the westoids will say the vote was rigged etc, but that’s the fact.
Who ran the election? If Russia, of course it was rigged.
‘Sadly, I don’t think we can afford to get involved in wars halfway around the world that aren’t direct threats to us’
I’ve shared a number of US foreign policy documents, the US goal was to extend Russia, which benefits us hegemony. The us has some, not all, but some responsibility for what has happened in Ukraine.
What is ukraine then to the us if it is not a military ally?
The us is very lucky it hasn’t been stretched between all out war in Ukraine and a war in the middle east. The Ukrainians have contributed to shielding you and us in the UK from that possibility.
Also cicero was a sell out in my opinion. I prefer Cato.
Putin’s end game is to reconstruct the Soviet Union. This is step one. And to that end we need to stop him now. My problem with what’s happening is we’re not stopping him. And tens of thousands of people are dying every few months. It’s unacceptable. We are the most powerful country in the world and we could do better. In fact, this never should have happened. We could have prevented it. We are that powerful.
‘Throughout the interview, Zelensky reiterated his plan for peace through strength, urging the US and other Western powers to continue supporting the war effort. Ukraine’s fight, he argued, has “shielded America from total war”’
There is much truth in this statement. When this war started, nato was only partially ready. Western nato powers are lucky that this hasn’t escalated.
The us promised to back them ‘ to the last Ukrainian’ I believe. There was much in the press in the UK pledging to support them too.
Now they need that backing to continue until the war is settled.
The progress made toward a peace summit is impressive, and I hope it is successful. I agree with this statement:
“create such conditions and such an atmosphere that Russia will no longer be able to ignore the peace formula and the peace summit”
Allowing the use of long range missiles might be a good way to achieve that.
Why was NATO not ready? NATO has been planning this war since 2014. This has been confirmed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French Presiden François Hollande, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, and Zelensky’s spinmeister Oleksei Arestovich. Arestovich in 2019 was very clear – there would be a war against Russia in 2021 or 2022, it would be devastating for Ukraine, but it would be the price Ukraine would have to pay to get into NATO.
US generals repeatedly visited Ukrainian troops and affirmed the unity between the US and Ukraine.
On 17th February 2022 – a week before the Russians invaded Ukraine – Ukraine began massively shelling Donbas (according to the OSCE observers) and massed troops in preparation for an invasion. The Russian invasion forestalled that.
The US executed a precipitate withdrawal from Afghanistan in the summer of 2021, in defiance of military logic and all advice; but it had to be done to clear the decks for the war with Russia.
As soon as Russia invaded, the US, the EU, and the G7 were ready with a flamboyant array of sanctions.
The sad fact is that NATO thought the sanctions would collapse Russia like a house of cards, which would lead to Putin being toppled. This would pave the way either for a break-up of Russia or a new Yeltsin. The looting of Russia – which Putin had had the effrontery to put an end to – could then resume, good times would be back, and NATO would have Sevastopol for their naval base.
How cruel to disappoint us so thoroughly!
Ammunition production was not what it should have been. I shared a number of sources on here before regarding the matter.
Honestly I could pull them again, but you can look it up yourself.
Also I think the sanctions were incredibly stupid.
Re ammunition, I suspect NATO’s key assumptions all went off, and all went off badly in the wrong direction. Gen Cavoli (SACEUR) freely said that NATO could not imaging the ammunition intensity of the fighting. Plus the fighting went on far longer than NATO ever bargained for. Plus Russian logistics proved efficient, against expectations.
Yes I agree, the situation is different now though and Russia recently lost some ammunition depots of it own, I haven’t kept up enough to comment much further than that. Ukraine has ramped up its own arms production since then, their drone strikes and offensive into Russia as far as I can tell are pretty successful. Pushing for peace will require pressure on Russia to negotiate. What their position is at the moment I’m not sure to be honest. The negotiations are a good start.
Yes, I was about to mention the ammunition depots. Stacking large amounts of ammunition in the open doesn’t seem like “efficient logistics” to me.
https://www.businessinsider.com/video-enormous-explosion-at-russian-ammunition-depot-ukraine-war-2024-9
Impressive explosions. Think I read they had blown up at least another two.
You need to produce some evidence for all this – for example your claim about OSCE observers. Otherwise it’s just propaganda.
There have been satellite images.
https://www.osce.org/files/2022-02-20-21%20Daily%20Report_ENG.pdf?itok=82567
It seems to me that short of total war involving the entire west, a la WWII, there is absolutely no way that Ukraine can prevail. All that is happening is that Ukraine is bleeding men and materiel. Sometimes, as the bard said, “discretion is the better part of valor”. If I were in leadership in Kiev I would negotiate with the Russians, and let them keep the Eastern oblasts and Crimea, and make western Ukraine a neutral country like Austria with no future intentions to join either NATO or the EU. That may seem like a cop out, but half a cake is better than no cake at all. The longer this war continues, the worse Kiev’s position will be. This is exactly analogous to the US civil war. A few glorious victories by the South at the beginning did them absolutely no good in the end because the industrial capacity of the North ultimately overwhelmed the South leding to their total defeat and capitulation. And right now that’s where Kiev is heading.