After Friday’s spectacle in the Oval Office, I have nothing but questions. Ukrainian President Volodmyr Zelenskyy appeared stunned. It made me wonder, as others are beginning to do. Could President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance have set him up for the television cameras?
To scold a respected world leader like a child for being “disrespectful” after he simply stated a historical fact seems nothing short of an overreaction. Might there have been more dignified ways to negate this negotiation? Did the American people really need to see our top two elected leaders bully a respected world leader in public to prove our strength?
Anyone who witnessed this event might wonder what Vance was trying to achieve when he first criticized Zelenskyy. It reminded me of the conversations on Trump’s reality TV show.
A contestant would try to explain their experience to Trump. Then, one of the other advisers would complain that the contestant wasn’t being respectful or responsive. Trump and the adviser would then talk over the contestant as he tried to defend himself. Trump would end the confrontation by saying, “You’re fired!”
After the contestant left the room, Trump’s supporters would pat him on the back, showering him with accolades for his “decision” and his ability to stand up to the contestant’s argument. Sound familiar?
Now that Trump has told Zelenskyy, “You’re fired!” what happens next? Are the Republicans pleased that he scuttled the lucrative deal for precious minerals in favor of staying “neutral” with Russia? I can’t wait for the next episode of this exciting series.
— Linda Finley Belan, Chicago
Zelenskyy’s intransigence
Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy behaved like an intransigent and foolish child in the Oval Office on Friday with the adult in the room, President Donald Trump.
The original objective was to achieve the first baby step, but an important one, of signing a mineral rights deal, which offers an economic barrier against Russian President Vladimir Putin with a U.S presence in Ukraine, as a prelude and off-ramp leading to peace negotiations.
Zelenskyy shouldn’t pass up a good thing.
— David N. Simon, Chicago
Symbol of democracy?
The so-called meeting at the White House with President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was a disgrace. Why did such an important meeting to discuss unsettled matters of life and death, and peace and war, take place in front of the news media and TV viewers? And why did the vice president interject in the conversation? The entire scene was highly unusual, to say the very least.
I read that the U.S. and Russia backed a three-stage peace plan discussed in Saudi Arabia; the second stage is for Ukraine to hold elections to elect a new president, and the third stage is to sign a peace agreement between Russia and the new Ukrainian president. Gee, I wonder why Zelenskyy wasn’t invited to that discussion. Was the White House meeting on Friday set up to discredit Zelenskyy in the hopes of forcing him out?
The fact that the president of the United States has taken the side of Putin, who attacked a sovereign, democratic nation and killed thousands of civilians and military personnel, among many other horrific acts, is against our values and our form of constitutional government. Putin is a murderous dictator — he managed to change Russian law to allow him to be president until 2036.
It is beyond belief that the Trump administration would vote alongside Putin, North Korea and Belarus on a United Nations resolution that refused to acknowledge Russia’s responsibility for attacking Ukraine. All of our allies voted for a different U.N. resolution saying that Russia attacked Ukraine, which it did and everyone knows it, and called for Russia to leave Ukraine. Why would the U.S. vote with Russia and not our allies?
Sadly, the U.S. can no longer claim it is a symbol of democracy in the world.
— Elizabeth Wallace, Western Springs
The US has lost trust
I have some questions to ask President Donald Trump. Why has he acceded to Russia’s false narrative about who started the war in Ukraine? What threat has Vladimir Putin made against him personally or against the United States? Americans must assume that Trump thinks he must appease Putin or the Russian leader will attack the United States with nuclear weapons or use cyberattacks to paralyze our economy.
Is siding with Russia and using a peace initiative with Ukraine only for material gain of mineral resources for the U.S. worth losing our allies in Europe? Now they will no longer trust us and have to reconnoiter.
Trump has now pointed the guns of our allies at us. Think about that.
— Jane Alfe, Lake Forest
Stand up for freedom
During the American Revolutionary War, France came to our aid with men, arms, ships and money, supporting our small amateur army against the strongest army in the world in its day, the army of the British Empire.
Did they provide aid in return for economic concessions that would likely have crippled the soon-to-be free nation, or did they provide it for the cause of freedom and because we were fighting their archenemy? Their aid was critical, and we survived, and, in the centuries since, have prospered and returned the favor several times, all without demanding future economic concessions. We have done so simply because it was the right thing to do, especially for an ally.
I watched the video of the Ukrainian president meeting with our president and vice president and was truly embarrassed on behalf of all thinking Americans.
This is an opportunity to support freedom and democracy, to support a small, independent nation trying its best to remain free, not a time for the “let’s make a deal” philosophy or a time to take advantage of a situation and dictate onerous terms to an ally.
It’s time to grow up and, as the leader of the free world, start acting like it. Stop pretending that former KGB agent Vladimir Putin is your friend and has our interests at heart. Stand up for freedom and democracy and start acting like a real American president.
— Robert B. Hamilton., Wauconda
Chumps to corruption
We should notice that the longer the Illinois Democratic Party perp walk grows, the more strident Illinois Democratic politicians become against President Donald Trump. Are they attempting to distract Illinois citizens from their long history of subverting democracy to corruption?
Gov. JB Pritzker’s recent use of the “Nazis” label is pure hubris. His sense of entitlement was on full display with his toilet removal tax scheme.
Despite an Illinois attorney general and a Cook County state’s attorney, Illinois residents continue to be chumps to corrupt politicians. Oh, also, those offices are held by Democrats.
— Jim Halas, Norridge
Razing government
Removing deadwood from a tree is good arbor care. It is healthy for the tree. It seems the president is bent on doing the same to our government.
Trimming a tree in a rope and saddle with a handsaw is a tremendous amount of work. You typically start at the top of the tree and work your way down, removing deadwood, sucker growth and rubbing branches. When the need arises to remove a large, heavy limb in a tree, you tie it to a work line and lower it to the ground. This protects everything and everyone below.
President Donald Trump and Elon Musk have a different approach to tree trimming. Their approach requires very little thought and work on their part. They are not professional arborists; they are wood cutters out to make a quick buck. They are lopping off large limbs with total disregard for the damage they are causing below.
In some cases, they are just cutting the whole tree down. If the tree falls on the power lines or a house, they will be nowhere to be found. The homeowner comes out of his house and realizes how much he will miss the 200-year-old oak tree. The tree provided much-needed shade in the hot summers. You can’t put that tree back. You can plant a new one. But it will take years for it to shade the home again.
The structure of our government didn’t happen overnight. How is it that we allow these people to dismantle the greatest government in the world? Don’t look the other way and pretend that nothing is wrong. Contact your elected representatives and demand that they stop the destruction of our democracy.
— Tim Ryan, Downers Grove
A partisan news era
I’m not much concerned about Jeff Bezos, owner of The Washington Post, announcing an adjustment to the points of view in his newspaper’s editorials and opinion content. I’m more concerned about the news pages.
I was a newspaper reporter and editor in the mid-1960s and early ’70s, before other career opportunities took me in a different direction. As part of my studies for a master’s degree in journalism at the University of Missouri, I had a course in the history and principles of journalism. We learned about a time in American journalism called the “Partisan Press Era,” the 1790s and early 1800s.
It was a vicious time when the media — mostly newspapers and pamphlets — nearly always were aligned with political factions. Parties such as the Federalists and Anti-Federalists launched and used the media to promote partisan views and prejudices and to fling hatred, lies and personal attacks at their opponents. There were hardly any sources for reliable, unbiased information.
As students, we shook our heads, thinking that the distant era seemed quaint and rather pathetic. Imagine how difficult it must have been for citizens to find honest, dependable news.
We imagined the Partisan Press Era in contrast with our own time. Sure, reporters and editors continued to have personal beliefs and opinions. But true professionals worked hard to set those outlooks aside and took pride in presenting factual, balanced information. For controversial topics, all sides had to be presented fairly and impartially.
Varying points of view, of course, were welcome and vigorously published, but these were within the confines of editorials, op-eds and letters to the editor.
Not so today. Journalism standards seem to have regressed to a new partisan era. Many news operations on TV and cable, radio stations and public broadcasting; many major newspapers; and even national wire services have abandoned traditional standards. Many have rolled themselves back to a partisan era redux.
I have no idea what standards are being taught in journalism schools today, but it seems that news media providing objective, honest reporting and editing are a rare exception. When found, they are a treasure.
— Alan Leahigh, Geneva
Faith in integrity lost
I found myself particularly interested in the Tribune Editorial Board’s discussion of the role of editorials and op-ed writing in newspapers (“What Bezos gets right about opinion sections, and what we think he gets wrong,” Feb. 27). I recently canceled our subscriptions to The Washington Post and The New York Times and was looking for clues as to why I am turning away from journalism described as “mainstream,” “legacy” or “corporate.”
The paragraph in the editorial about the role of newspapers in supporting government stood out. The editorial board supports the statement that “people cannot consent to be governed unless they have knowledge of, and faith in, the leaders and operations of government.” What happens when people have good knowledge of the leaders and operations of government and have no faith in what is happening? What is a newspaper to do when readers perceive that “the integrity of government” is failing?
Bezos, as owner, is leaning into the idea that the Washington Post should not be concerned about good (or bad) government — just free markets and personal liberties. The Tribune Editorial Board is taking the “legacy” road of “this has worked for us so far, so let’s keep doing it.” The board seems to acknowledge that things now happening in government are bad, but not bad enough for any of us — newspapers or readers — to do anything other than what we have always done.
As a reader, I have been discovering, and am taking my subscription dollars to, independent journalists who focus on informing citizens and supporting them to take action to address the mess our country is now in. “Not owned by anybody” is their credo. When our government is failing, it is up to us to get it back on track, as in “we the people.”
So why do I subscribe to the Tribune? It informs me about local news, developments and investigations, and I want to know what the Tribune has to say to the Chicago community. One of my favorite sections lately is letters to the editor. There, I can find readers who write persuasively, passionately and knowledgably of their concerns for our government.
Publishing these letters is a pro-democracy act, so thank you for that.
— Lisa Jean Walker, Chicago
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
