94Ha Viewpoint
After this rare quarrel broke out, I hope everyone will be more calm, not excited, and should notice that there is more chilling, not lively and noisy.
On the last day of February, Ukrainian President Zelensky came to the Oval Office of the White House to meet with US President Trump. He was originally going to sign a new version of the mineral resources agreement, which would basically allow the United States to have ownership and mining rights of Ukraine’s mineral deposits. But what surprised the world was that this public meeting in front of many reporters turned into a fierce quarrel between Zelensky and US President and Vice President Trump and Vance. It is estimated that most people in the world, including experienced and experienced media people, have never seen such a scene. The top leaders of the two countries confronted each other face to face in front of the camera, almost to the point of fighting. But those who are interested must still look at all this with a calm and objective attitude in addition to the noise and shock, and perhaps they can more accurately understand this incident and the current situation of the world it reflects.
First of all, it is necessary to clarify whether someone deliberately directed or deliberately intensified this quarrel. After all, Zelensky’s purpose of this trip is very clear, which is to sign the relevant mineral agreement reached with the United States. No matter how much injustice and uneasiness there are, the main details should have been completed in the previous behind-the-scenes negotiations. The mission of this trip is just to sign. There is really no need to quarrel again. But logically, if the quarrel can lead to the breakdown of the agreement and the responsibility can be attributed to the other party, then there is a motive to direct this incident. It seems that Ukraine is more suspicious because it tries to maximize its national interests, and the arrogance and selfishness of the United States become an opportunity to exploit. But looking back, all parties have more reasons to avoid a breakdown in relations, especially Ukraine, because without the support of the United States, it may fall on the battlefield soon, and it is not wise to risk angering the current US government. Therefore, before there is definite evidence, we can only regard this quarrel as an accident, an alternative diplomatic game scene.
Secondly, it must be made clear that the protagonists of this quarrel did show very unprofessional qualities. In international diplomatic occasions, even when the media is present, it is actually a very common phenomenon that conflicts or quarrels occur. This is the value of diplomacy itself, but there should be many professional ways to avoid such public unpleasant results. For example, when the two sides begin to realize the gunpowder smell, someone must decide to stop the conversation or dismiss the reporters so that the discussion can continue in a smaller scope; for example, the negotiation method, in the conversation in public diplomatic occasions, the tone, expression, gestures, etc. should be the details that need to be controlled, but the three protagonists of this quarrel obviously did not pay attention to these. Diplomacy requires a high level of professionalism, otherwise it will be no different from ordinary people quarreling, and will inadvertently lose a lot of space for compromise and waste the opportunity for peaceful discussion.
All three lack professional diplomatic literacy
It is understandable that the three people in this quarrel are not professional diplomats, or even professional politicians, but have become leaders of their own countries halfway through their careers; unfortunately, people who do not understand professional literacy can humbly ask for advice or ask others to do it for them, but they also forgot this point.
Once again, it is important to know that the ins and outs of this quarrel are actually very clear. The background of this meeting between the leaders of the United States and Ukraine is that the Russian-Ukrainian war has entered its fourth year. The new US president hopes to stop aid and achieve peace or ceasefire. Under the circumstances of the US-Russia cross-top diplomatic discussions and compromises, Ukraine’s sovereignty and rights have been sacrificed, which has become an inevitable trend. Under this circumstance, Ukraine hopes to use domestic mineral resources (also proposed by the United States) in exchange for continued support from the United States. The United States accepted the resources but was unwilling to provide security guarantees. Ukraine, in desperation, has planned to use this agreement as the first step to ease the US position. Zelensky just wants to make a final effort before signing the agreement, hoping to get even a verbal commitment from the United States on security guarantees. This is the process of the two sides talking for more than half an hour before the quarrel broke out, just like a child bargaining process in the hope of getting more benefits when handing over the treasure in his hand, but this process seems a bit long, so that the adults lose patience, which is why Trump and Vance directly pointed out that Zelensky did not respect them enough. As for whether the child did not want to give out the treasure or the adult did not want to make a promise, no one knows the true state of their hearts, but in this extreme tug-of-war, they obviously did not grasp the fire well, which led to a situation of losing control.
Finally, we need to worry that the danger after the quarrel is not limited to Ukraine. After the quarrel, Zelensky was driven out of the White House and did not enjoy the prepared meals, but he did not leave the United States immediately. In the evening, he was interviewed by Fox News, which Trump likes. As for the fate of the agreement, it remains to be seen. The quarrel does not mean that the agreement will not be signed, because it concerns the national destiny of the two countries, especially Ukraine; if there is no quarrel, it cannot cover up the essence of the agreement, that is, a big country is seizing the opportunity to plunder the assets of a small country.
As for the discussion of morality and interests, it may continue for a long time. Is the world morally blackmailing the United States to aid Ukraine? Or is Ukraine’s quick signing of the agreement a respect for the United States? Is there an inevitable connection between the maintenance of justice and the size of the ability? Such important issues have been discussed many times in history and have reached basic conclusions. But today’s quarrel has made these issues stand out again, and they need to be argued again, and perhaps they need to be argued with the experience of blood and fire, because some people think that the strong are not necessarily responsible for justice, and morality should give way to interests. In this case, Ukraine was the first to be put on the altar; if this situation continues, it will not only be Ukraine that will be put on the altar.
In general, after this rare quarrel was exposed, I hope everyone will be more calm, not excited, and should pay attention to the more chilling, not the bustling. After all, whether it is between countries or between people, the cruel reality does not necessarily have to wait until you experience it in person to have a deeper understanding.
