U.S. National Security Adviser Mike Waltz Dismisses Claims of a Planned Ambush Against Zelensky
In a recent interview with Breitbart News Saturday, U.S. National Security Adviser Mike Waltz strongly denied claims that the takedown of Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky was a premeditated ambush. Waltz described such speculation as “total BS” and provided a detailed account of what transpired during the negotiations. According to Waltz, after Zelensky’s public display, he and Secretary of State Marco Rubio made it clear to the Ukrainian leader that the negotiations were over and that it was “time to go.” Waltz emphasized that Zelensky’s behavior during the meeting was seen as ungrateful and disrespectful, especially given Ukraine’s heavy reliance on U.S. financial and military assistance.
Waltz also drew historical parallels to illustrate his point. He referred to instances in U.S. history where presidents have walked away from unproductive negotiations. For example, he mentioned President Trump’s decision to leave a meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un during his first term when it became clear that no progress was being made. Waltz also recalled President Reagan’s famous walkout during the Reykjavík Summit with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, citing it as an example of a leader recognizing when a negotiation is no longer tenable. These historical references were meant to underscore the idea that sometimes, walking away is the most prudent decision when the other side is unwilling to compromise or accept reality.
Zelensky’s Behavior and the Breakdown of Negotiations
Waltz painted a vivid picture of the tension in the Oval Office during the meeting with Zelensky. He described the Ukrainian leader as argumentative and insulting, even going so far as to fact-check the U.S. delegation in front of the press. Waltz expressed disbelief at Zelensky’s approach, noting that it is ill-advised to insult someone who is essentially asking for help. He also revealed that Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S. was visibly dismayed by the situation, literally face-palming during the exchange. According to Waltz, the ambassador understood the gravity of the moment, recognizing that American patience with Zelensky had finally worn thin.
Waltz further explained that the U.S. had been negotiating in good faith for weeks, working on an agreement that could have been a “fantastic day” for Ukraine. He mentioned that other European leaders, such as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the President of France, had already expressed support for deploying European troops to secure Ukraine’s future. This, Waltz argued, aligns perfectly with the U.S. strategy of having Europe take a more active role in its own defense. The deal would have also allowed Ukraine to secure trillions of dollars in aid, while also enabling the American taxpayer to begin recouping some of the billions already invested in the country.
Addressing Speculation About the Meeting
Waltz was quick to address speculation that the breakdown of negotiations was a planned ambush. He dismissed such claims as “total BS” and reiterated that the U.S. had worked hard to negotiate a favorable deal for Ukraine. He acknowledged the efforts of Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen and Senator Marco Rubio, who had been involved in the negotiations alongside him. Waltz expressed frustration that Zelensky had squandered an opportunity that could have been a major win for his country, not just in terms of financial aid but also in terms of long-term security and stability.
The Fallout and Implications
The breakdown of the negotiations has significant implications for Ukraine’s future. Waltz made it clear that the U.S. had expected Zelensky to recognize the reality of his situation and accept the terms of the deal. Instead, Zelensky’s behavior was seen as a slap in the face to the U.S. and its allies, who have been steadfast in their support of Ukraine. The failure of the negotiations also raises questions about Zelensky’s leadership and his ability to navigate complex geopolitical situations.
In conclusion, Waltz’s account of the meeting paints a picture of a missed opportunity for Ukraine and a breakdown in relations with the U.S. The lesson, according to Waltz, is clear: leaders must know when to walk away from a bad deal, just as Presidents Reagan and Trump did before. The U.S. delegation had hoped for a different outcome, but Zelensky’s behavior left them with no choice but to end the negotiations and move on.
Final Thoughts on the Situation
The situation with Zelensky serves as a reminder of the challenges of international diplomacy and the delicate balance of power in global negotiations. While the U.S. had hoped to secure a deal that would benefit both Ukraine and American taxpayers, Zelensky’s actions undermined those efforts. Moving forward, it will be important for Ukraine to reflect on this experience and consider how to repair its relationship with the U.S. and other Western allies. For now, the door on this particular negotiation appears to be closed, and it remains to be seen how this will impact Ukraine’s future.
