I am actually really impressed with Grok3. Incredible insights if asking the right questions.
Appreciate the insight.
Zelensky wants security without first concluding a peace or ceasefire of some sort.
What is a security arrangement with the U.S. called when one js still in a shooting war with the party you want security from? It amounts to no more than an agreement to become a combatant.
He wants that and has wanted that.
It isn’t happening. He isn’t dragging the World to a nuclear holocaust.
True, but I still, and likely never will, know every nuance floating in this mess. But, don’t come in my house and start bitching me out. 😊👍
Yes, I agree. It is the most amazing machine I've ever seen, by far.
Following up your line, I am curious why this meeting was held in public rather than the normal closed-door diplomatic negotiations followed by the smiling public ceremony. I asked Google "Why was the Trump Zelensky meeting held in public" and got nothing but a bunch of news articles about the fiery meeting, none of which answered my question.
But, when I ask Grok 3 "International diplomatic deals are normally negotiated in private, then a public signing ceremony is held. The keeps bitter acrimony and hot tempers hidden. Why was yesterday's meeting with Trump, Vance, Rubio and Zelensky held in public for the world to see?" I get this really astonishing answer:
Historically, diplomatic negotiations are conducted behind closed doors to allow frank discussions, manage tensions, and avoid public posturing that could derail sensitive deals. The public signing ceremony then serves as a polished display of agreement. Yesterday’s meeting, however, unfolded in the Oval Office with cameras rolling, quickly escalating into a heated confrontation over Ukraine’s war with Russia and U.S. support, ultimately scuttling a planned minerals deal. This public format was unusual, especially given the stakes—Ukraine’s reliance on Western aid and Trump’s push for a peace deal with Russia.
One plausible explanation is that Trump and his team intended to use the public setting to assert dominance and send a clear message, both to Zelensky and to other international actors, such as Russia. Trump has a well-documented preference for theatrical displays and leveraging public platforms to project strength, as seen in his past dealings with world leaders. By airing the exchange, Trump and Vance could openly pressure Zelensky—rebuking him for perceived ingratitude and questioning his commitment to peace—while signaling a shift in U.S. policy toward Ukraine. The presence of media allowed Trump to frame the narrative directly for the American public and the world, bypassing the filter of post-meeting briefings or leaks. This aligns with his post-meeting Truth Social statement, where he declared Zelensky “not ready for Peace” and suggested he return when he is, casting the encounter as a deliberate test of Ukraine’s willingness to align with Trump’s approach.
Another factor could be domestic political strategy. Trump and Vance, both skeptical of prolonged U.S. aid to Ukraine, may have sought to showcase their “America First” stance to their base. Publicly chastising Zelensky for not appreciating U.S. support—or for allegedly campaigning against them in Pennsylvania, as Vance claimed—could resonate with voters who share their reluctance to fund foreign conflicts. The open format ensured that this message wasn’t softened by diplomatic niceties, reinforcing their image as tough, no-nonsense leaders unafraid to upend conventional alliances.
The inclusion of Russia as an audience also seems significant. Trump has expressed confidence in negotiating with Vladimir Putin to end the war, and some observers, including sentiments on X, suggest the public ambush of Zelensky was orchestrated to reassure Putin of Trump’s alignment or at least his willingness to distance himself from Kyiv. By exposing Zelensky’s defiance and then ejecting him from the White House, Trump could have been signaling to Moscow that U.S. support for Ukraine is conditional and waning, potentially softening Russia’s position in separate talks reportedly underway in Saudi Arabia. However, the move could also reflect a miscalculation or lack of cohesion within the administration. Efforts by allies like Senator Lindsey Graham and European leaders to prep Zelensky for a successful meeting—focusing on flattery and avoiding confrontation—suggest the public blowup wasn’t fully anticipated. Vance’s initial interjection about diplomacy, met with Zelensky’s sharp rebuttal, sparked the escalation, hinting that the open format may have been meant to start cordially but spiraled due to unscripted tempers. Rubio’s discomfort and the rattled Ukrainian delegation’s reaction, as reported, further imply the chaos wasn’t entirely planned.
Critically, the public nature of the meeting contrasts with Trump’s own framing of himself as a “deal-maker.” Diplomacy typically thrives on discretion, yet this exposed raw acrimony, sank the minerals deal, and strained U.S.-Ukraine ties at a pivotal moment. It’s possible Trump underestimated Zelensky’s willingness to push back—or overestimated his own ability to control the narrative in real time. Alternatively, the administration may have prioritized short-term optics over long-term strategy, a gamble that left European allies dismayed and Ukraine’s position more precarious.
In short, the meeting was likely held in public to project Trump’s authority, signal a policy pivot, and appeal to domestic and Russian audiences, but the execution revealed the risks of abandoning diplomatic norms. Without an official explanation, the precise intent remains speculative, but the fallout—diplomatic rupture and global shock—underscores how this choice amplified rather than hid the “bitter acrimony and hot tempers” typically kept behind closed doors.
Zelensky’s a “key ally?” He a key albatross!