I’m no dress guru Lardy, but surely you can agree that when the leaders of 2 countries get together for an official, serious meeting, then wearing a suit and tie should be the norm?Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
Printable View
I’m no dress guru Lardy, but surely you can agree that when the leaders of 2 countries get together for an official, serious meeting, then wearing a suit and tie should be the norm?Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
Normally yes, I'd say so. But I don't think he wore a suit when he spoke with other countries, or to the UN, or to US Congress. I think he's said he'll wear one when the war is over. So if he'd worn a suit to this meeting, I'm sure they'd have found a way to use that against him - particularly as the reporter who asked the question is Marjorie Taylor Greene's boyfriend. He was on a hiding to nothing either way, he wouldn't win whether he wore a suit or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by William Treseder
I’ve heard it said in the last twenty four hours that Churchill often wore military gear when meeting other leaders during the Second World War - dunno if it’s true or not, but no one seems to be disputing it. Also, I think what Musk wears in the White House becomes important when it’s tolerated by the very people who it seems have a problem with what Zelensky wears when he’s there - Trump and Vance are hypocrites.
Fair point 👍Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
I never judge anyone by the clothes they wear with no exception. In fact, I admire Zelenskyy for not bowing down to others' expectations.
I’d have to watch the full video again to give you timestamps.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
The thing is, what Zelensky was saying wasn’t necessarily wrong, it’s where, how and when he said them.
His tone became increasingly agitated throughout the conference.
There were two particular flash points to me, which were a possible implied threat to the US if Ukraine didn’t stop Russia and also asking Vance about diplomacy.
Everyone talking about his attire are making a mountain out of a molehill.
It was that ridiculous journalist that asked the question (who incidentally stroked Trumps ego with another question before that).
Trump actually said he liked Zelensky’s attire.
Modi was there a couple of weeks back, not wearing a suit…I can’t imagine such a question being asked of him.
Ultimately Starmer and Macron, played to Trumps ego and left with what they wanted.
Zelensky didn’t have to be sycophantic but he didn’t have to be irreverent either…which I think he was a bit.
As far as a set up/ambush goes….according to Marco Rubio, the deal could have been signed 5 days ago and there was no need for Zelensky to come to DC, but he insisted.
As I said, the first 40 minutes were relatively smooth and had he kept calm and not talked past the sale, things would be different.
He should have put a suit on, he's been acting like an action man president for too long, sure some Europen leades lapped it up, but he dropped a bollock big time turning up looking for help in a scruffy sweatshirt and a bad attitude. Fair play to Starmer he stroked his ego and it worked a treat and had him eating out of his hand. How could he possibly get it so wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
To say you're protected by your nice ocean, but you'll get it or words to that effect were so stupid when he needs their help, what a daft mistake to make, that's what blew a massive deal and could have lasting repocusions.
He had better beg, he has a very weak hand.
Love the way that idiot pence was going on about disrespecting the Oval Office when just over 4 years ago Trump was encouraging his fellow buffoons to storm government buildings….massive respect shown for government that day eh?
Who gives a shit what he was wearing? I’ve never ever seen him in a suit. Trump and pence are just idiots ffs. If I was Zelenskyy I would have just looked at them when they began to kick off and left, humiliating them properly.Quote:
Originally Posted by North Cardiff Blue
He wears what he wears as a statement, and everyone knows why - it has been explained enough over 3 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by North Cardiff Blue
The attack on his clothing was pathetic - and just one part of a crass set up from the Trump menagerie.
The reference to the ocean protecting the USA was a reference to something Donald Trump has said!
'He had better beg, he has a very weak hand.' - beautiful Trumpspeak. Well done!
I am no fan of Zelenskyy, but the Oval Office shit show is all on Trump. There may be some rowing back from both sides, but it turned out to be what couldbe a defining moment in the realignment of the post WW2 world: An isolationist US and expansionist Russia in an alliance - and a geopolitical and economic cold war with Europe and China.
Europeans are traumatised and racing to adjust to the new reality but Xi and Putin are laughing their heads off.
Thanks, your views are pretty balanced and im not going to defend Zelensky much because I’m still not sure if his behaviour was provocative or not, but he was in a position where he was being criticized in a very forceful manner by the President and Vice President backed by some very hostile journalists - it was a situation which plenty of experienced political commentators have said they’d never seen the like of before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wash DC Blue
This brings me on to the fact that Trump needs to be treated differently because he’s so unpredictable. It’s strange, the previous President showed obvious signs of slowing down physically and mentally and was, rightly in my view, deemed to be unfit for a second term. However, Biden never behaved in the way Trump does - old men nearer eighty than seventy that shout and rant in important public meetings discussing a war would be thought to be unfit for duty in normal circumstances, but normality disappears out of the window with Trump and people go out of their way to try not to upset him as they bend over backwards to try and accommodate him. Seems to me that the more you try to tolerate and flatter Trump, the more liberties he takes.
Not sure Pence can be blamed for too much yesterdayQuote:
Originally Posted by goats
He's in the middle of a war turnip brain. He also doesn't want to stand apart from his people and look like he's just hob nobbing and partying. Sorry he couldn't wear a tuxedo for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by William Treseder
Who actually cares what he wore? They were coming together to try and broker a deal between nations worth hundreds of billions of dollars, international relations, the placement of a huge number of military assets and (hopefully) securing peace in the region for years to come. A deal that would have world changing consequences.
What he was wearing should be completely irrelevant to securing that deal.
The jumper and boots look is part of his “look” the same way Trump has his long red ties and MAGA hats. Or Steve Jobs always wearing black turtle necks and Lemmy with his iconic facial hair.
The full version is very different to what is being aired and discussed in this threadQuote:
Originally Posted by Wash DC Blue
https://x.com/thatskaizen/status/189...982719659?s=46
The full version is very different to what is being airedQuote:
Originally Posted by Wash DC Blue
Timestamps below.
Zelenskyy was emotional.
Interrupted Trump.
Called Putin names.
Raised his eyebrows.
All before Trump checked him.
And he called Vance a bitch.
He wasn’t ready for peace.
2:00 Trump compliments Zelenskyy
4:00 Zelenskyy calls Putin a terrorist
12:00 Trump cracks joke with Zelensky
13:56 Zelenskyy interrupts Trump
17:20 Zelenskyy throws his hands up in seeming frustration
19:00 reporter asks Zelenskyy why he’s not wearing a suit
19:22 Trump commits to sending arms to Ukraine
19:41 Zelensky raises eyebrows and rolls eyes at Trump’s statement
22:55 Trump takes the edge off of the suit question by joking with Zelensky that he likes his outfit
23:49 Zelensky contradicts Trump and keeps painting Putin in a negative light
24:19 Zelensky says Putin will never accept ceasefire and pushes for American security guarantee
25:55 Zelensky says Putin hates Ukrainians
27:00 Zelensky says Putin should pay all reconstruction costs
29:19 Zelensky shakes head as Trump speaks
32:22 Zelensky says Putin wants to annex Poland
32:30 Zelensky says Putin will attack America
33:00 Zelensky interrupts Trump
39:19 This is when Trump went on the offensive by calling out Zelenskyy hatred for Putin and started to escalate
39:14 Vance says Zelensky has been disrespectful, and conversation continues to escalate
42:40 Apparently calls Vance “suka”, meaning bitch, under his breath.
You don't have to like how Trump handled this, but don’t buy into the story that he ambushed Zelensky.
Meant Vance not pence….:facepalm:Quote:
Originally Posted by delmbox
If only:thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959
Are you the full shilling? “Turnip brain “?Quote:
Originally Posted by ToTaL ITK
You are a bellend of the highest order.
You are about as interesting as the bacon slicer in Morrisons 😂
A lot of you guys are wasting your time because you aren't seeing it from America's perspective.
It's not their job to police the world. This is a European war that America is overwhelmingly paying for.
Why should they? They have the same social problems we do. They cant stop drugs from crossing the border that kill a thousand times more Americans than this war does, so why would they support sending endless sums to Ukraine?
Time for RealPolitik. The US ain't subsidizing is anymore. We need to deal with it
I’ve seen it said in podcasts that what America has actually done is given Ukraine weapons they deemed obsolete and had been marked for destruction. I can’t say for sure that this is true or not, but it seems clear that the figures Trump is claiming America has “given” to Ukraine is a big exaggeration - this piece from the BBC is echoed by other news sources I’ve seen and makes your claim that America is paying “overwhelmingly” for the Ukraine war effort completely wrong..Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crew8y7pwd5o
That said, I’d say the American claim for some reimbursement has some merit to it, but your attempts to justify the outrageous words and behaviour of Trump and Vance on Friday makes no recognition that they looked like they had switched their allegiance to support for the country that tried to completely invade Ukraine three years ago. Such a dramatic change of American allegiance taking little over a month after a period of eighty years of American - European cooperation over Russia is bound to have huge consequences at home and in Europe - especially when there is a chance that any US Government following in 2028 would look to restore what has been a more normal relationship with the Europeans.
To try to dismiss what America is doing like you have done and say Europe just has to get on with things themselves is over simplifying a decision which potentially has enormous questions that need to be clarified - especially when American has such an erratic President.
The US was one of the countries that persuaded Ukraine to give up its nukes in exchange for security assistance should it be attacked.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
No deals with the US can be relied on ever again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
I heard a few years ago that a significant number of weapons and equipment was old and outdated I think I mentioned it on here and it was ignored.
With regards to your last paragraph, is Trump less erratic than Biden ?
Is there any access to a Russian perspective in all this or is it banned so we can only see the one sided narrative?
Did you mention the old weapons to show that the degree of support being offered by the American President was not as great as claimed? If you did, then we're saying the same thing, albeit about different Presidents.Quote:
Originally Posted by TWGL1
I'm not getting into an argument about which one out of the last two Presidents, both of whom showed that they were temperamentally unsuited for the job, is the more erratic - the simple fact is neither of them are/were up to the job.
We have people like you, and one or two others (none of whom are banned to the best of my knowledge) here to try and justify Putin's behaviour.
You've been watching too much FashionTV :biggrin:Quote:
Originally Posted by Canton Kev
What is so controversial about agreeing to a ceasefire before entering into peace talks?
Just to get this straight , just because I ask for a balanced explanation doesn’t mean I support anybody in this proxy war neither Russia or Ukraine. It would mean I was hypocritical as I wouldn’t want my son called up.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
It’s predictable that you and a few others simply cannot see the facts and accept that people are entitled to question the consequences of prolonged conflict.
Are you suggesting anyone with a view that you don’t agree with should be banned, if so you’re a fool and is probably the reason why platforms like this are dying a slow death. Who do you think you are old timer ?
I see the UK has committed to £3bn per year financial aid for 100 years ( about 1/80 the of Zelenskyy wants )
What’s next, No fly zones? Troops in Ukraine? Long range missiles ?
How many troops does the UK have anyway , probably less than two Russian divisions.
As usual most of the posts which you wet the bed over have proven to be very on point
Trump is a nutcase surrounded by nutcases
It's important to stress that whilst he won the election LOADS of decent American people didn't vote for the lunatic
Putin is a ruthless dictator
Zelensky is far from perfect either
But ....America could easily vastly reduce its defence bill in Europe but still ensure that putin is told in no uncertain terms that he needs to get back to Moscow and a peace deal means he cannot invade again without consequences
America......here we mean trump .....is totally irrational and it's kidding itself if it thinks it's giving up its world policeman role .....if it feels like it it will jump in when it feels like it as it always has done .....and if it does the MAGA nutcases who are cheering on trump for pulling out of Europe will cheer him on again if he does on you turn
So unless America is prepared to play a smaller part but still a part in the Ukraine and baltic states situation with military and financial help then Britain , France , Denmark etc are going to have to somehow cobble together some kind of basic deterrent peacekeeping deal to buffer putin
Starmer is going to have to walk a very fine line and I am sure he's going to get lots of flak but I can't see what else he can do
Here you go again, what did I say in my last post that was confrontational? I said we were probably talking about the same thing when it came to any old weapons, I said I didn't see the point in arguing about who was the worst out of two poor Presidents and I said you have never been banned, as far as I'm aware, from putting your views, which I can never remember being pro Ukraine or anti Russia, on here - what's there to argue about?Quote:
Originally Posted by TWGL1
I'm done arguing with you anyway because you get personal in a way that James Wales or, to be fair to him. Gluey, doesn't.
I don’t like you as your a snide OAP way above your stationQuote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
I was listening to Stephen Nolan on radio 5 yesterday who was speaking to various politicians regarding the crisis and a Danish MP was going on about how bad putin was and Trump's bizarre behaviour but didn't come up with any clear comments that his country and the rest of Europe were going to get out the cash and fund some sort of defence system
They all need to stop gossiping and make some decisions
Can't help yourself can you - I'll not bother you again today.Quote:
Originally Posted by TWGL1
That's because I am the most balanced poster on here and I'm not on any side, I just comment on what I see.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂priceless. Keep giving mate cheers 👍Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
Crikey, it took you 144 minutes to appear, I must be losing my touch! :hehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by Packerman
F**k the EU, not my words, if you'd rather not get another history lesson, just jump to 2 mins 20 seconds, fed up to the back teeth of the lot of it, you would have enjoyed town yesterday, St David's Day :biggrin: went in the bluebell for the 1st time since the rolling stones played in the old stadium, think it was called the Urban Jungle Tour, there was a guy sat on his jack with a Welsh dragon flag wrapped around him for a moment i though it was you :hehe: daffodils on the table, me and Doris did wander across the road to a place called the Welsh House for a bit of munch, very nice it was we both had the Lamb, we also did our bit for the climate nutters and walked into town along the Taff trail, tried to walk it back but gave up at the Blackweir tavern, aging legs mine not hers had had enough, we had done 17,000 steps at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Everyone needs a history lesson on the reasons the Ukraine war started.<br><br>There was a neutrality deal ready in 2022 that would have avoided millions of deaths.<br><br>Biden’s Sec of State Blinken and UK Boris Johnson told Ukraine to cancel it.<br><br> <a href="https://t.co/1E7z5dTBM6">pic.twitter.com/1E7z5dTBM6</a></p>— Wall Street Mav (@WallStreetMav) <a href="https://twitter.com/WallStreetMav/status/1895993453349404845?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 2, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I actually agree with your post. The very best a United Europe could have done years ago was to have built-up a strong European Military and have abandoned the USA years ago by treating it as a Geopolitical threat to be kept at arms distance.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
Yeah its just the reality of it and we know it's been coming. The thing is this is happening on our continent. It's not happening on theirs so I can see the resentment at paying far more to try and win the war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorcus
I don't think the US cares so much about Russia anymore. China is a far greater rival and I think it views it all as an expensive distraction.
Understanding that will help us move forward I think. The reality is that the US just isn't going to keep funding the war
When you look at their history in global conflicts, “it’s not in their continent” is hardly a reason for the USA to not get involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
Since Bush they’ve been in conflicts involving Palestine, Israel, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Niger, Uganda, DR Congo, Sudan, CAR, Somalia and Pakistan.
Go back a bit further and they’ve been involved in the Gulf War, Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Panama and a dozen more Middle Eastern and African conflicts.
America has built themselves up as the “world peacekeeper”. The money and resources they put towards their military is unmatched. They spend more on their military than the next 10 nations combined. There’s 21 active aircraft carriers in the world and America has 12. The country with the next highest is the UK, joint with China and India on 2. The USA has military bases in half the countries on the planet.
Whether or not they should be so involved globally is another matter, but the fact is they are. Including signing the Budapest Memorandum in 1994, promising protection to Ukraine from foreign invasion.
They might have the same social problems we do, but they’ve also decided to dedicate just short of a Trillion Dollars to their military spending despite being bordered by 2 allies and sitting ~5000 miles away from their main “enemies”.
If the Trump administration redirects the tens or hundreds of Billions of dollars destined for Ukraine towards stopping Mexican drugs I’ll hold my hands up and say fair enough, I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that won’t be the case however.