Trumpists would have created scandal at any cost. And Ukraine played along...

The first point is quite clear. Trump himself is a complete nutcase and has gathered even more nutcases around him.

Recently, Trump has found a sensitive spot for Democrats - the cost of the war in Ukraine. He is lying, exaggerating the costs of the US assistance to Ukraine. But his voters love it - enough of feeding Ukrainians with American money! That's why Trump is and will continue to actively push the issue of spending American taxpayer money on Ukraine.

Scandals, outrageousness, rudeness and pressure are Trump's style of campaigning. Speaker Johnson's letter to Zelenskyy was written in the harshest possible tone, and the public demand to dismiss the ambassador is undiplomatic and boorish in content.

In terms of the logic of Trump's campaign, the scandal surrounding Zelenskyy's visit to the United States was expected and welcome for Trump. The only thing the Trumpists lacked was serious grounds for a scandal. We helped with this ourselves.

And now to the mistakes of Ukrainian diplomacy. No matter how hard the positive bloggers on Bankova Street try to absolve the Office of the President and present the scandal as a Trumpist prank, there are mistakes in Ukrainian diplomacy.

1. In my opinion, if you decided not to interfere in the American elections, it was a mistake to try to meet with presidential candidates. Because presidential candidates are now doing only what is related to the election. No matter how much you want to interfere in the election, the candidates themselves will get you involved, because you are now a media figure and yes, the topic of Ukraine has unfortunately become one of the central themes of the American election. In such a situation, two months before the election, it would be wise not to meet publicly with anyone other than officials. At the same time, of course, the Ukrainian delegation should have met with the candidates' headquarters and worked with them. But not in public, and not at the level of the president, but at the level of advisers.

Such an approach would automatically remove any accusations of Ukraine's interference in the US election and sympathy for one of the parties. But no. We had a Victory Plan, and we really wanted to voice it powerfully. That's why we have what we have.

2. The facts set out in Johnson's rude letter are true. Zelenskyy did go to Pennsylvania, one of the disputed states where the fate of the presidency is being decided. He met with the Democratic governor, who is close to Kamala Harris, and a Democratic senator and congressman. After the meeting with Zelenskyy, the governor rolled out a luxurious campaign post in which he mentioned the Ukrainian diaspora, whose votes he counts on. According to Johnson, Republicans were not invited to this trip.

Hmmm... the President of Ukraine travelled with friends of the Democratic presidential candidate to a disputed state and they created a bunch of campaign content - what could Republicans not like about that?

3. In his interview with The New Yorker, the President of Ukraine for some reason gave a public personal assessment of Trump's Vice President J.D. Vance, calling him ‘too radical’. This is a gross mistake. No matter how much of a sh*thead Vance is (and he is!!!), it is unacceptable for officials to assess the politicians of another country. Especially given that it is America that gives us tens of billions of dollars, not us.

To sum up. I think the Trumpists would have made a scandal out of Zelenskyy's visit to the US anyway. But we have made their job much easier by making casual and unmotivated mistakes in simple situations. This includes the clinical inability of the President of Ukraine to control his tongue in interviews with Western media.

For Ukraine, it would be better not to make mistakes and let the Trumpists make a fuss not about the facts that we have kindly provided them with, but about some far-fetched reason and make themselves look like the morons that they mostly are. Unfortunately, it was not possible to work without mistakes. Replacing Kuleba with Sybiha does not seem to have improved Ukrainian diplomacy so far.

And my sincere condolences to Oksana Markarova, who is the subject of all the passion. She definitely has nothing to do with this. Personally, I am proud to have an ambassador like her.

Source.

About the author: Serhiy Marchenko, labour market expert, blogger.

The editors do not always share the opinions expressed by the authors of the blogs.