Peter Doocy: Unless Zelenskyy makes a public apology, all bets are off

Former Democratic congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has publicly thanked former President Donald Trump for his leadership, particularly regarding his stance on Ukraine and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Gabbard expressed appreciation for Trump’s firm position in the recent Oval Office confrontation, where tensions between the U.S. and Ukraine became apparent. She accused Zelenskyy of attempting to drag the U.S. into a nuclear conflict with Russia and praised Vice President JD Vance for advocating diplomacy.

Gabbard further criticized Zelenskyy for banning political opposition in Ukraine and seizing assets from his critics, portraying him as an authoritarian leader. Many Americans, she claimed, agree with this sentiment, especially considering the vast amount of U.S. taxpayer money being sent to Ukraine with no clear resolution in sight.

The article highlights that Gabbard has long been skeptical of U.S. support for Ukraine, arguing that Russia’s concerns about Ukraine potentially joining NATO were legitimate. She has questioned whether U.S. involvement is truly in the best interest of American citizens. With her recent comments, she has once again positioned herself as a vocal critic of Zelenskyy and the continued funding of Ukraine’s war efforts.

During the high-profile meeting in the Oval Office, Trump reportedly displayed strength, which many of his supporters viewed as a positive step. However, sources suggest that the negotiations initially began cordially but quickly deteriorated. The article suggests that unless Zelenskyy issues a public apology, the U.S. may halt negotiations on a crucial mineral deal, further complicating relations between the two nations.

Trump has stated that he wants to end the war in Ukraine within his first 100 days in office, setting an April 30 deadline. Some believe this goal may be more significant than forcing an apology from Zelenskyy. The administration’s frustration with Ukraine has reportedly been building over time, with U.S. officials feeling that private discussions with Zelenskyy have not been accurately represented in public statements.

The explosive nature of Friday’s meeting at the White House was unprecedented. Historically, diplomatic disagreements have occurred behind closed doors, but this dispute played out publicly, raising concerns about the image of U.S. leadership on the world stage. Some European allies, including France and the UK, have had diplomatic disagreements with Trump but maintained respectful relations in recent visits. The public nature of this dispute with Zelenskyy was seen as unusual and concerning.

The reactions to this meeting are divided. Some see the transparency as necessary, allowing the American people to see Zelenskyy in a different light. Others worry about the broader implications, particularly regarding how foreign leaders such as Vladimir Putin may perceive the situation. Russian officials have reportedly praised the confrontation, which raises further concerns about geopolitical stability.

Polls indicate that while many Americans are critical of Zelenskyy, they remain deeply distrustful of Russian President Vladimir Putin. The uncertainty surrounding U.S.-Ukraine relations leaves the future of aid and diplomatic negotiations in question.

In addition to these discussions, the article touches on the broader implications of rare earth mineral deals, another topic of importance in U.S.-Ukraine relations. The show also features commentary from Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen, who has voiced concerns about the meeting’s impact on U.S. foreign policy and how America’s adversaries may be celebrating the fallout.