What happened in the White House

Some of my Saturday morning thoughts on what happened (haven't got a chanse to listen to anyone yet):

It is hard to tell for now, was what happened in the White House yesterday staged and to what extent, but the phrase that Trump said about Zelensky "We have seen enough" and he allowed that to last for quite a while, means that is Trump wanted, he could throw Zelensky out much earlier, but allowed him to reveal himself to the public. Moreover, if Trump wanted that deal to be signed, he could have done it behind closed doors. His idea was a bit different - this was a stress-test that Zelensky has failed, proving to everyone, that it is the Ukraine that doesn't want peace.

I think, there were several goals.

1) Europe:

Zelensky, knowingly or not has dragged along the people, who asked Trump to meet him - Macron, as it was reported yesterday, convinced Trump to meet Zelensky. Macron has ambitions to become the leader of Europe. At the same time, let's not forget that meeting with Kallas was cancelled by Marco Rubio that last minute. What it could possibly mean, also minding what Trump said about EU when introducing 25% tariffs? Current US administration is no longer interested in united Europe, they bet on national states. Macron and Starmer were shown, what would happen to them if they disobey. Ok, Britain is not a part of the EU, but they must decide, if they want to play against US or together with it. Zelensky there doesn't matter at all, he was a dummy to demonstrate those who think that they are the leaders of Europe, what happens to them if they disobey.

There is also an idea, that EU is much more interested in conflict in Ukraine than the US. And it was like that right from the start, if we recall, rhetoric of Biden's administration was much more polite than European one. But in the times of Democrats (and let's also remember that 1st term of Trump was, mostly, rule of the Democrats, as all I remember is Trump doing is mostly trying to prove that he's not Russian spy), EU was feeling pretty good as an ally of the US and, let's be honest, used the US to solve own problems. Here we should divide people of EU and leadership. Leadership of EU created an echo chamber, where they convinced themselves, that they are a major power. For the US such symbiosis was quite profitable as well, in many ways, starting from the agenda to military spending.

But now there is hope that US is sobering up from that libtard madness and tries to assess what the real situation looks like. The reality on the ground, as they say. And the reality is quite bitter for the common West, but the US, apart from EU, can solve the problem, at least, partially, on their own. EU, at the same time, can do it only someone else's account, in this case - Russia. And their plan was (and still is), is to make Russia disintegrate and then get to Russian resources for free. That is why they have put everything at stake (and lost, as gambling addicts always lose). Still, disillusionment comes hard.

Once again I want to stress - there are no pro-Russians politicians in the West, there are people with realistic approach and ideologized zealots. First group is called "pro-Putin", second "pro-European and/or Democratic". But let's get real - 500 years of the Western hegemony came to an end. We are in the beginning of new era, where the common West will have to either abide by common rules, either cease to exist, as they will not be able to withstand competition. Meloni said yesterday "Every split in the West makes us even weaker and is beneficial to those who would like to see the decline of our civilization," - I'd recommend her to look out of the window and see that their civilization has already collapsed. By itself. Due to internal reasons.

2) Internal enemies of Trump. Here things are quite simple. He distanced himself (and JD too) from previous administration. Remember Vance telling Zelensky that he participated in the pro-opposition rallies? Trump makes sure that, at least, next term is kept by someone from his team. Musk called Vance possible next President. I assumed so, by the way, it was quite logical. But we'll see how it goes.

Also, as I have already said, EU + Democrats were in symbiosis. Trump sees EU as a competitor (in some spheres) and a parasite (in terms of, say military spending). And he wants to get the clear picture, if keeping troops in EU benefits US or not. Moreover, Musk said that US must review how MIC works and switch from expensive specimens with questionable efficiency to mass production of cheap but effective weapons. That is quite an interesting story in general, that requires profound knowledge of military planning. But from the point of view of civilian auditor the question is what is the best for US and I think Trump and his team have the answer.

3) Other interested parties, as the world majority is tired of the conflict, tired of sanctions and Trump here acted in kind of interesting way - he as if sided with Putin, saying that Putin wants peace, stressing, by the way, that there is little love towards Zelensky in Russia. But he didn't accuse Russia. In any case, that looked reasonable and constructive to the world majority.

In general, it is too early to sum up, but my thought is that Zelensky was used by Trumps team to achieve their goals. Ukraine is still a tool. We'll see what benefits (if possible) the sides can take out of the situation and in what way. Situation is very hard to predict, all we can do, is carefully analyze what has happened (and what has been said). Let's keep watching.

@EastCalling