TrueValueMetrics ... Impact Accounting for the 21st Century

Date: 2026-03-03 Page is: DBtxt003.php txt00029406

UKRAINE TRUMP IS WRONG ON ALL COUNTS ... Conway Media Zelenskyy Meets Canada’s Carney Ahead of High Stakes Trump Talks PLAY YOUTUBE VIDEO Original article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtDYBBE6l_E
1 Minute Ago: Zelenskyy Meets Canada’s Carney Ahead of High Stakes Trump Talks Conway Media Dec 28, 2025 24.6K subscribers ... 48,036 views ... 2K likes President Zelenskyy meets with Canada’s Carney in an important diplomatic stop ahead of his upcoming talks with Donald Trump. The meeting signals continued coordination with allies at a moment when global attention is focused on the next phase of political and strategic discussions. This video explains why the timing of this meeting matters, what messages may be sent ahead of the Trump talks, and how these conversations could impact Ukraine’s position on the world stage. Stay informed on the developments that could shape what comes next. How this was made Altered or synthetic content Sound or visuals were significantly edited or digitally generated. Learn more Peter Burgess COMMENTARY Peter Burgess Transcript 0:00 What happens when a nation's survival hangs in the balance while the leader of the free world treats diplomacy like a real estate negotiation? What happens when 500 drones and 40 missiles rain down on a capital city in the dead of night while somewhere in Florida, a golf cart sits waiting for its next round? What happens when the very concept of American leadership becomes subordinate to the whims of a man who thinks foreign policy is about making deals rather than defending principles? These are the questions I find myself grappling with as I watch the unfolding drama of the Trump Zalinski meeting at Mara Lago. And I can tell you as someone who spent years in the conservative legal movement, the answers are deeply troubling. I have watched this administration's approach to Ukraine with growing alarm. And I say this not as a partisan observer, but as an American who understands that what happens in Eastern Europe does not stay 1:01 in Eastern Europe. The meeting scheduled for Sunday afternoon at Mara Lago between President Trump and Ukrainian President Vladimir Zalinski represents what may be the most consequential diplomatic encounter of the decade. When the president of the United States tells Politico that Zalinski doesn't have anything until I approve it, we are not hearing the measured words of a statesman engaged in complex multilateral negotiations. We are hearing the language of a landlord dealing with a tenant who is behind on rent. We are hearing the voice of a man who has never truly understood that America's alliances are not protection rackets, that our partnerships are not transactional arrangements to be renegotiated whenever one party feels agrieved. The timing of this meeting could not be more fraught with tension and consequence. Just hours before Zalinsky was scheduled to depart for Florida, Russia launched one of the most devastating aerial assaults on Kiev in 2:00 months. Roughly 500 drones and 40 missiles, including the fearsome Kinszal hypersonic missiles, screamed through the Ukrainian skies, targeting power stations, residential buildings, and the very infrastructure that keeps a nation of 40 million people alive through a brutal winter. The attack began in the early morning hours and continued for nearly 10 hours. At least two people were killed. Dozens more were wounded, including children who should have been opening Christmas presents instead of huddling in underground shelters. One woman, Oena Carpeno, told reporters that she heard a man screaming as he burned to death, that his cries still echo in her ears. And what was Vladimir Putin's message with this attack? It was unmistakably clear Russia does not want peace on any terms that preserve Ukrainian sovereignty. I spent years as a conservative lawyer and I understand the importance of seeing the world clearly without the distortions of wishful thinking or partisan loyalty. 3:01 What I see now is a situation where the United States has gradually shifted from being Ukraine's most reliable defender to being something more ambiguous, more transactional, more uncertain. The 20point peace plan that will be discussed at Mara Lago has its merits, I suppose, but it also contains provisions that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. The plan calls for security guarantees that mirror NATO's article 5, which sounds reassuring until you remember that these guarantees are only as strong as the will of the guarantor. And this administration has shown repeatedly that its will is fickle. President Zalinski stopped in Halifax, Canada on his way to Florida, meeting with Prime Minister Mark Carney in what can only be described as a strategic effort to shore up support before entering the lion's den at Mara Lago. Carney announced an additional 2.5 billion Canadian dollars in economic assistance for Ukraine. A gesture that 4:00 stands in stark contrast to the conditional approach of the Trump administration. When Carney stood beside Zalinski and declared that achieving a just and lasting peace requires a willing Russia, he was stating what should be obvious to anyone who has followed this conflict. And yet obvious truths are in short supply in certain quarters of the American government these days. The Ukrainian leader arrived in Florida late Saturday night. his delegation traveling on a plane emlazed with Trump's name, a detail that strikes me as both ironic and deeply symbolic of the power dynamics at play. Zalinski has said that the 20point plan is 90% ready, that significant progress has been made in discussions with American negotiators. But the 10% that remains unresolved is not trivial. It includes questions about territorial control in the Donbass region, the future of the Zaparisia nuclear power plant, and the mechanisms for monitoring any ceasefire 5:01 agreement. These are not details to be worked out over cocktails at a private club in Palm Beach. These are matters that will determine whether millions of Ukrainians can ever return to their homes, whether a nation that was invaded without provocation will be forced to accept the permanent loss of its territory. I have spent decades studying the law and understanding how agreements work, how they are negotiated, how they can be enforced, and how they can fall apart. What I see in the current peace negotiations over Ukraine is a process that while superficially resembling serious diplomacy contains fundamental flaws that should concern anyone who cares about lasting stability in Europe. The evolution of the peace framework from 28 points to 20 points may seem like progress, a streamlining of complex issues into a more manageable form. But I suspect it also represents the systematic stripping away of provisions 6:00 that Ukraine and its European allies considered essential. When negotiators eliminate eight points from a document, those eliminations tell a story. And I doubt that story is one of Russian compromise. The negotiations have been conducted in an unusual manner to put it diplomatically. President Trump's special envoy Steve Witoff and his son-in-law Jared Kushner have served as the primary American interlocutors, meeting with Ukrainian officials in Berlin, with Russian representatives in Miami and Moscow, and shuttling between capitals in a manner that suggests energy and activity without necessarily guaranteeing wisdom or strategic coherence. Witoff, a real estate developer with no prior diplomatic experience, was appointed to this role because of his personal relationship with the president, not because of any demonstrated expertise in international relations or the complexities of postsviet politics. Kushner brings his own particular history to these negotiations, a history that includes a 7:01 failed Middle East peace effort and persistent questions about his judgment. I want to be clear about something that often gets lost in the noise of partisan commentary. I do not oppose negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. The suffering has been immense, the death toll staggering, and the costs to both Ukraine and the broader global economy are unsustainable over the long term. What I oppose is negotiations conducted in a manner that rewards aggression, that treats the victim of an unprovoked invasion as an equal party to blame, and that prioritizes speed over durability. When President Trump says he wants to end the war quickly, I understand the appeal of that sentiment. But quick is not the same as good. And a bad peace agreement could prove worse than continued conflict. The 20point plan that Zalinski described to journalists includes some provisions that sound reasonable on their face. The plan affirms Ukraine's sovereignty, establishes a monitoring mechanism for 8:02 any ceasefire, and proposes security guarantees backed by the United States and its European allies. But the devil resides in the details. The plan calls for a demilitarized zone along the current line of contact, which sounds like a sensible buffer arrangement until you realize that it would essentially freeze in place Russia's territorial gains from an illegal war of aggression. The plan proposes that Ukraine's military be capped at 800,000 personnel, a significant constraint on a nation that has demonstrated the need for substantial defensive capacity. and the plan remains vague on the question of NATO membership. President Putin, for his part, has shown precisely zero indication that he is negotiating in good faith. While Zalinski was preparing to travel to Florida, Putin was meeting with his war generals dressed in military fatigues in a calculated display of Bellico symbolism. The 9:01 Russian president has made clear that he views the ongoing talks not as a genuine effort to find common ground, but as an opportunity to extract concessions from a weakened adversary while his forces continue their grinding offensive in eastern Ukraine. He has demanded that Ukraine withdraw from territory that Russia does not even control. He has insisted that any settlement include a formal recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea and the other annexed territories and he has continued to claim against all evidence and logic that Ukraine is the obstacle to peace. I find myself thinking about a phrase that gets thrown around a lot in discussions of this conflict. Peace through strength. It was a Republican mantra during the Cold War. an acknowledgment that the Soviet Union would only be deterred by a credible demonstration of American resolve and capability. Ronald Reagan understood this principle and his 10:00 approach to the Soviet threat was characterized by a clarity of purpose that is sadly lacking in the current moment. Peace through strength does not mean abandoning allies to the mercies of aggressors. It does not mean treating international commitments as optional. And it certainly does not mean outsourcing American diplomacy to real estate developers and family members whose primary qualification is personal proximity to the president. There is a moment in every crisis when the choices made or not made determine outcomes for generations. I believe we are living through such a moment now. And I fear that the current approach to the Ukraine war, characterized by ambiguity, transactionalism, and a fundamental misunderstanding of what is at stake, may lead to consequences that will haunt American foreign policy for decades. When I look at the photographs of destroyed apartment buildings in Kev, 11:01 when I read the accounts of ordinary Ukrainians who have spent nearly four years living under the constant threat of Russian missiles and drones, I am reminded that this is not an abstract policy debate. Real people are dying, real families are being shattered, and real communities are being erased from the map. The Russian attack on December 27th was not a random act of violence. It was a calculated message timed precisely to coincide with the diplomatic efforts underway in Florida. When Putin orders his military to launch 500 drones and 40 missiles at a civilian population center on the eve of peace talks, he is not signaling a willingness to negotiate in good faith. He is demonstrating that he believes he can continue killing Ukrainians while the international community debates and deliberates that he can extract territorial concessions without offering anything meaningful in return. The attack cut power to more than a million homes in and around Kiev, left more than 40% of residential buildings without 12:00 heat as temperatures hovered around freezing, and reminded every Ukrainian citizen that their survival depends on decisions being made thousands of miles away. I have watched with growing concern as the framing of this conflict has shifted in certain quarters of the American political discourse. What began as a clear-cut case of unprovoked aggression has somehow become a complicated situation with fault on both sides. This is nonsense and dangerous nonsense at that. There is no moral equivalence between Russia and Ukraine in this conflict. There is no credible argument that Ukraine bears responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of deaths, the millions of refugees, and the billions of dollars in destruction that have resulted from Putin's decision to invade. Ukraine did not ask to be invaded. Ukraine simply wanted to exist as an independent nation to choose its own alliances and determine its own future. President 13:01 Zilinski has shown remarkable flexibility in these negotiations. A flexibility that I suspect does not come easily to a man who has watched his country be invaded, his cities bombed, and his people killed for nearly four years. He has indicated a willingness to consider a demilitarized buffer zone in the Donbass region, territory that Ukraine has fought and died to defend. He has signaled openness to discussing the management of the Zaparisia nuclear power plant, proposing a joint Ukrainian-American enterprise as an alternative to Russian control. He has even suggested that the final peace agreement could be put to a referendum of the Ukrainian people. But flexibility has its limits and I worry that the pressure from Washington to make additional concessions may push Ukraine beyond what any sovereign nation should be asked to accept. The role of Jared Kushner in these negotiations, deserves particular scrutiny. Here is a man whose 14:00 previous foray into international diplomacy, the so-called deal of the century for Israeli Palestinian peace, was widely regarded as a failure that ignored the legitimate concerns of one side. Kushner's approach to complex international problems seems to reflect his father-in-law's worldview that everything is a transaction that every party has a price and that the goal of negotiation is to get the best deal for your side regardless of broader consequences. This approach may work in Manhattan real estate. It does not work in international security where the stakes are existential and the losers may not survive to negotiate again. I think about the Ukrainian civilians who spent 10 hours huddled in underground shelters during the December 27th attack, listening to the explosions above them, wondering if their homes would still be standing when the allclear sounded. I think about Elena Carpeno, the 52-year-old woman who told reporters that she heard a man burning to death in 15:01 the attack, that his screams are still in her ears. I think about the children who were wounded, the families who lost everything, and I ask myself, what message does it send when the American response to such attacks is to invite the perpetrators proxies to Miami for discussions, to treat Russian demands as legitimate negotiating positions, and to pressure the victim to make concessions in the name of peace? We stand at a crossroads and the path we choose will determine not only the fate of Ukraine but the future of the international order that has kept the peace since the end of World War II. I do not say this lightly or for rhetorical effect. I say it because I believe it to be true. Because I have spent years studying the institutions and norms that undergur global stability and because I can see clearly how quickly those institutions and norms can be eroded when great powers lose their commitment to principle. The meeting at Mara Lago between President Trump and President 16:01 Zalinski is not simply a bilateral discussion between two leaders. It is a test of whether the United States remains capable of distinguishing between right and wrong in international affairs, between the aggressor and the victim, between the principles we claim to hold and the expedient compromises that seem so tempting in the moment. I have been asked many times over the past several years why I broke with the Republican party, why I have spent so much time and energy opposing a president I once hoped might govern effectively. The answer fundamentally is that I believe some things matter more than partisan loyalty. The rule of law matters. Constitutional governance matters. And yes, America's role in the world matters. Not because we are perfect or because our motives are always pure, but because the alternative to American leadership is not some enlightened multilateralism. The alternative is a world where might makes right, where borders are redrawn 17:02 by force and where nations like Ukraine are left to the mercy of larger, more powerful neighbors who view their very existence as an affront. The 20point peace plan that will be discussed at Mara Lago contains some provisions that could in theory form the basis for a durable settlement. security guarantees that mirror NATO's article 5 would be meaningful if they were backed by a genuine commitment to enforce them. A demilitarized buffer zone could reduce tensions if it were monitored by credible international forces with the authority to respond to violations. Economic provisions for Ukraine's reconstruction could help rebuild what Russia has destroyed if the funding were actually provided and administered effectively. But every one of these provisions depends on implementation, on followth through on the sustained attention of parties who have demonstrated time and again that their 18:00 attention span is limited and their commitments are contingent. When President Trump says Zalinski doesn't have anything until I approve it, he is revealing a mindset that views the Ukrainian president not as a partner in a shared effort, but as a supplicant seeking favors from a patron. The role of European allies in these negotiations has been instructive. Leaders from across the continent have rallied to Ukraine's support, providing military assistance, economic aid, and diplomatic backing in the face of Russian aggression. The European Council recently approved a 90 billion euro loan to help Ukraine through the next two years. Canada's Prime Minister Carney announced additional billions in assistance during his meeting with Zalinski in Halifax, emphasizing that peace requires a willing Russia. But European support, while welcome and necessary, cannot substitute for American leadership. The United States remains the indispensable nation in the 19:00 Western Alliance. When America waivers, when our resolve becomes uncertain, the entire architecture of Western security is weakened and Vladimir Putin watching from Moscow takes note and adjusts his calculations accordingly. I want to be honest about something that often goes unsaid. There is no perfect solution to the war in Ukraine. After nearly four years of fighting, after hundreds of thousands of deaths, after the destruction of cities and the displacement of millions, the choices available are not between good outcomes and bad outcomes. They are between bad outcomes and worse outcomes. A negotiated settlement that leaves Russia in control of Ukrainian territory and fails to provide adequate security guarantees would be a bad outcome for Ukraine, for Europe, and for the international order. But continued fighting with its daily toll of death and destruction is also a bad outcome. 20:02 The question is not whether we can achieve perfection, but whether we can find a path that preserves Ukraine's sovereignty, punishes rather than rewards aggression, and establishes mechanisms to prevent the conflict from resuming. What would a good faith negotiation look like? It would begin with an acknowledgment that Russia is the aggressor in this conflict, that its invasion of Ukraine was a violation of international law, and that any settlement must reflect that fundamental reality. It would include robust security guarantees backed not just by words, but by the deployment of forces capable of deterring future Russian attacks. It would establish clear consequences for violations. It would provide for the return of Ukrainian prisoners and the accountability of those responsible for war crimes. And it would be conducted by experienced diplomats who understand the complexities of the region, not by real 21:02 estate developers and presidential relatives whose primary qualification is their personal relationship with the man in the Oval Office. I fear that the meeting at Mara Lago will not meet these standards. I fear that the pressure for a quick resolution will override the need for a durable one. I fear that President Trump, eager to claim a diplomatic victory, will push Ukraine to accept terms that leave it vulnerable to future attack. And I fear that the lessons of this conflict, the lessons about the costs of appeasement, about the importance of deterrence, about the need for sustained commitment to principle, will be forgotten in the rush to declare success. History has a way of repeating itself. Not because we are ignorant of the past, but because we convince ourselves that this time is different. President Zalinski arrives at Mara Lago carrying the weight of a nation on his shoulders. He comes seeking security guarantees that will 22:01 protect his people from future aggression. He comes seeking economic assistance that will help rebuild what Russia has destroyed. He comes seeking recognition that Ukraine's fight is not just Ukraine's fight, but the fight of every nation that believes in the principle that borders cannot be changed by force. And he comes knowing that the man across the table has already signaled that Ukrainian needs are subordinate to American preferences. I do not envy him his position, but I admire his courage, his persistence, and his refusal to abandon the cause of Ukrainian freedom, even when the odds seem long. Putin, meanwhile, has made his position abundantly clear. Even as peace talks proceed, Russia continues its military offensive, continues killing Ukrainian civilians, continues destroying Ukrainian infrastructure. The Russian president's statement that if Kiev is not willing to resolve the matter peacefully, Russia will 23:00 accomplish its goals by military means is not a negotiating position. It is a threat. This is not the posture of a leader seeking genuine peace. This is the posture of a conqueror who expects capitulation. As I conclude these reflections, I am reminded of a simple truth that seems to have gotten lost in the calculations of the current moment. Right and wrong still matter. The distinction between the aggressor and the victim still matters. And the choices that America makes in this moment will define our country's character for a generation. We can choose to stand with Ukraine to provide the support it needs to defend itself and to insist on a peace that respects its sovereignty and deters future aggression. Or we can choose the path of accommodation, of expedience, of quick deals that may not hold and may not be worth holding. I know which choice I would make. I know which choice honors the best traditions of American foreign policy. And I hope against the evidence 24:02 of recent experience that our leaders will find the wisdom to make the right choice before it is too late. The world is watching what happens at Mara Lago. Our allies are watching to see whether American commitments can be trusted. Our adversaries are watching to see whether American resolve can be tested and found wanting. And the people of Ukraine, the millions who have suffered and the thousands who have died, are watching to see whether the nation that claims to lead the free world will actually lead or whether it will retreat into the comfortable delusions of those who believe that peace can be achieved by abandoning principle. The answer to that question will be written in the coming hours and days.

SITE COUNT