It’s interesting to read your point of virw, but this incident happened in the United States, not in Russia or Ukraine. As a guest in this country and as his own country’s leader, Zelensky should have been treated with the utmost respect in that meeting. Not only is he his country’s leader, he is a hero, and not just any hero, a war hero.
The way that he was treated may be familiar and acceptable to you, but it is unfamiliar and completely repugnant to us. In our country an adult would never speak so disrespectfully to another adult, at least not in public. We know from TV shows that police do it, but only bad police. We’ve heard that prison guards do it but only the corrupt ones. It is a behavior that we consider contemptuous. That is why we’re so horrified at what happened and are so discouraged about the future of our country, now that our leaders have turned into “gangsters,” the term that David Brooks and others used on PBS to describe the behavior of Trump and Vance. We just became one of the bad guys, and it’s devastating.
Thanks for Sharing this POV. It helps add some explanation to an absurd situation. While Zelensky should have known better on how to frame the meeting based on the audience, the US didn't need to show what American first means in the rudest possible way. That was insanity.
This is so good! I couldn't help but laugh at that I could replace "Soviet" with "Chinese" throughout this article, and the point on culture differences still pretty much stands. 😄
There's cringing all around, as I cringed when I read this apology/explanation for Zelensky's behavior. I cringed when I read Z's apology to Trump. We all need to get our heads around the fact that Trump does not negotiate in good faith, and all efforts to appease him will fail unless you offer him a chance to exercise his power and ego or give him lots of money. Vance is doing a good imitation of being flat out crazy, so no appeasing him. The world needs to figure out how to work around Trump, not make futile attempts to wheedle and appease him into compliance.
While I'm not from the same region, I have the same sentiment as well. No amount of being diplomatic should come inbetween how you counter a national leader getting verbally asulted in public. I feels like he handled the situation in a great gentlemenly manner. There's no real reason to question his manners while US behaved in such horrible manner.
First of all, this treatment of Zelensky w planned in advance to catch him off guard! There was NO way he would suspect that he was not going to have his Say as in a normal conversation with normal adult. Second, they planned to film it for their illiterate fans to show how tough they could be: this was not s diplomatic conversation, it was an ambush where you are hiding and come out guns blazing while the guest comes with notes!
We’re sorry he met with this charade that is our present leadership.
Thank you Sana for sharing your views here. What I love about this platform is (and former podcast) is the cultural translation piece. Thanks for providing this much needed perspective.
ashamed of him? oh my. you should be ashamed of your absurd reaction. and it pains me to say as a ukrainain american who lived in ukraine for many years, this is the typical, almost ingrained, ukrainian idea that deferential = respect that has been drummed into your heads. silence is dignity. or some kind of other hoo-ha. it is not true that he would have walked away in dignity, in silence. they were purposefully going for the jugular - THAT IS THE MAIN POINT - not his reaction - but WHY THEY WENT FOR HIS JUGULAR. that should be the ONLY focus. not your reaction (frankly, who cares and why do you feel as though you need to convince us by saying "and my family also felt this way" - stand your own ground) and not if he laughed, cried, interrupted, stood on his head - all not relevant. go ahead and waste your time feeling ashamed when what you should only be feeling is furious. again, as a ukrainian american whose husband is from kyiv and as a person who has lived in ukraine - the telltale sign each time when I lived there - esp. from women - that someone was trying not to be confrontational there appeared this false form of deferrence. silence. because silence shows wisdom and strength (not always - do you think ukraine would have gotten independence without speaking up/refusing to succumb?). or women sighing. or stoic nod of agreement. no, he should not react like the brits or the french because, oh, i know, 1. they were not being set up on purpose and 2. their countries are not at war. the canadians have put out a great meme showing trump going for zelenskyy's throat (jugular) - which is what happened verbally - and zelenskyy punching back and walking out. and THAT's from the peace-loving Canadians. frankly, get over yourself. quite possibly some of your other essays were worthy of note - this one was not. Irene Jarosewich, New York City
This essay certainly has provoked strong emotions and I understand and appreciate the dissenting view. But I am certain that the writer is not "ashamed" of Zelensky, but quite firmly the opposite, she's a huge admirer of Z's character and his presidency, and says quite bluntly that this meeting looked like a trap laid out for him. Perhaps in my intro I should have done a better job of saying that I think that a careful consideration of Z's strategic mistakes in an extremely difficult situation is not the same thing as blaming him for being attacked.
OK, but his biggest strategic mistake was assuming that he would be treated in a civilized manner and not ambushed by the President of the United States because it "would make great TV" - really he made no "apriori" strategic mistakes other than assuming that he was dealing with adults, honest brokers, professionals. ooppss. The writer, in my reading, did not explain what exactly was his strategic mistake - i.e. his planning, his approach - only his reaction, she felt, was inappropriate. that's my point. that is silly. he made no strategic mistake in entering the discussion and his reaction was appropriate. but anyway, thank you for your reply. zelenskyy will be judged well by history for this moment is my convinction. let's live 40 years and see.
When the agenda (of Trump & Vance) is humiliation of a leader, there was not much Zelensky could have done to avoid the abhorrent behaviour directed at him, with or without a strategy and/or with or without a suit. With the threat of 25% tariffs looming against Canada, Prime Minister Trudeau went to Trump’s Florida domaine to offer respect at the beginning of his presidency (to many Canadians’ chagrin). How Trump reciprocated that respect was to call the Prime Minister “Governor” and to state that Canada should & probably would be the 51st state.
Brilliant, hilarious, insightful and....There's a scene in the 1969 film Midnight Cowboy where the protagonist - a naive hustler from Texas who comes to NYC hoping to bed older ladies for money only to find himself wandering the streets in a dirty cowboy costume with his consumptive, crippled pal - happens to catch a bit of a television show featuring a small dog wearing eyelashes, false teeth, and lipstick while a live audience cackles. Based on our naive hustler's pained expression and the tip of his grotesque cowboy hat against the store's window, he could relate. This was how I felt watching Zelensky on the set of the Trump/Vance show. A bit like a costumed hustler watching a costumed dog choke on false teeth realizing that the world is full of bullies. Zelensky in his wee military costume, forced to perform for the cameras, poked and prodded by two self-righteous, sweaty sadists. Naturally, your highly informed perspective is heartening to hear, but maybe it's the trauma therapist in me that can only see this type of political theater as the Roman colosseum.
Thank you for sharing your perspective, Sana. It says so much about the critical role of cultural context when interpreting a situation and I’m intrigued by a Ukrainian pov. In the US, we have many subcultural contexts and I’m from the plain-speaking and direct state of Nebraska. My interpretation is that Trump is still furious that Zelenskyy has never bowed to him, that he wouldn’t look for Biden dirt, that he won the presidency in the first place. Trump is determined to dominate Zelenskyy, he viscerally wants to dominate him. I think Trump would ride Zelenskyy if he could. The suit brouhaha? That’s a red herring, a Mean Girl move. Churchill wore flying suits during WWII. Zelenskyy would look ridiculous showing up in a suit. I would think less of him for dressing up for Trump, who will only ever be abusive to him. All this said, please share more.
Thanks Sana for sharing an unpopular opinion and the cultural backstory. As a media person, love interviewing Eastern Europeans because they get right to the point! But I can see how it's not the most useful trait in a diplomatic setting.
The text is a reflective commentary on the recent tumultuous meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Donald Trump, and JD Vance, highlighting the cultural misunderstandings and political implications of their interactions. The author, Sana Krasikov, shares her personal perspective as a Ukrainian immigrant, noting the discomfort felt by her and her family regarding Zelensky's approach during the confrontation. She critiques Zelensky for adopting a confrontational style reminiscent of "Soviet uncles," which may not resonate well with American political norms.
Krasikov emphasizes the importance of understanding cultural dynamics in diplomacy, suggesting that Zelensky's performance was more aligned with a Ukrainian audience than an American one. She raises concerns about the potential consequences of this meeting for Ukraine's political future and speculates on the influence of Russian propaganda in American politics. Overall, the commentary underscores the complexities of international relations, the need for cultural sensitivity, and the challenges faced by leaders navigating different political landscapes.
It’s interesting to read your point of virw, but this incident happened in the United States, not in Russia or Ukraine. As a guest in this country and as his own country’s leader, Zelensky should have been treated with the utmost respect in that meeting. Not only is he his country’s leader, he is a hero, and not just any hero, a war hero.
The way that he was treated may be familiar and acceptable to you, but it is unfamiliar and completely repugnant to us. In our country an adult would never speak so disrespectfully to another adult, at least not in public. We know from TV shows that police do it, but only bad police. We’ve heard that prison guards do it but only the corrupt ones. It is a behavior that we consider contemptuous. That is why we’re so horrified at what happened and are so discouraged about the future of our country, now that our leaders have turned into “gangsters,” the term that David Brooks and others used on PBS to describe the behavior of Trump and Vance. We just became one of the bad guys, and it’s devastating.
Thanks for Sharing this POV. It helps add some explanation to an absurd situation. While Zelensky should have known better on how to frame the meeting based on the audience, the US didn't need to show what American first means in the rudest possible way. That was insanity.
This is so good! I couldn't help but laugh at that I could replace "Soviet" with "Chinese" throughout this article, and the point on culture differences still pretty much stands. 😄
Thank you for sharing this! Gold.
There's cringing all around, as I cringed when I read this apology/explanation for Zelensky's behavior. I cringed when I read Z's apology to Trump. We all need to get our heads around the fact that Trump does not negotiate in good faith, and all efforts to appease him will fail unless you offer him a chance to exercise his power and ego or give him lots of money. Vance is doing a good imitation of being flat out crazy, so no appeasing him. The world needs to figure out how to work around Trump, not make futile attempts to wheedle and appease him into compliance.
How I am reading this essay, as a person born in a post Soviet country, is that a person being assaulted should have minded their manners.
Honestly, I do not understand why writing it was necessary at all.
While I'm not from the same region, I have the same sentiment as well. No amount of being diplomatic should come inbetween how you counter a national leader getting verbally asulted in public. I feels like he handled the situation in a great gentlemenly manner. There's no real reason to question his manners while US behaved in such horrible manner.
Thank you SO MUCH for this. That "uncle" stereotype crosses cultures, as it turns out. So useful to hear this from another viewpoint.
I appreciate this cultural translation so deeply. It is what first brought me to Rough Translation and it fills me with joy every time
First of all, this treatment of Zelensky w planned in advance to catch him off guard! There was NO way he would suspect that he was not going to have his Say as in a normal conversation with normal adult. Second, they planned to film it for their illiterate fans to show how tough they could be: this was not s diplomatic conversation, it was an ambush where you are hiding and come out guns blazing while the guest comes with notes!
We’re sorry he met with this charade that is our present leadership.
Thank you Sana for sharing your views here. What I love about this platform is (and former podcast) is the cultural translation piece. Thanks for providing this much needed perspective.
ashamed of him? oh my. you should be ashamed of your absurd reaction. and it pains me to say as a ukrainain american who lived in ukraine for many years, this is the typical, almost ingrained, ukrainian idea that deferential = respect that has been drummed into your heads. silence is dignity. or some kind of other hoo-ha. it is not true that he would have walked away in dignity, in silence. they were purposefully going for the jugular - THAT IS THE MAIN POINT - not his reaction - but WHY THEY WENT FOR HIS JUGULAR. that should be the ONLY focus. not your reaction (frankly, who cares and why do you feel as though you need to convince us by saying "and my family also felt this way" - stand your own ground) and not if he laughed, cried, interrupted, stood on his head - all not relevant. go ahead and waste your time feeling ashamed when what you should only be feeling is furious. again, as a ukrainian american whose husband is from kyiv and as a person who has lived in ukraine - the telltale sign each time when I lived there - esp. from women - that someone was trying not to be confrontational there appeared this false form of deferrence. silence. because silence shows wisdom and strength (not always - do you think ukraine would have gotten independence without speaking up/refusing to succumb?). or women sighing. or stoic nod of agreement. no, he should not react like the brits or the french because, oh, i know, 1. they were not being set up on purpose and 2. their countries are not at war. the canadians have put out a great meme showing trump going for zelenskyy's throat (jugular) - which is what happened verbally - and zelenskyy punching back and walking out. and THAT's from the peace-loving Canadians. frankly, get over yourself. quite possibly some of your other essays were worthy of note - this one was not. Irene Jarosewich, New York City
This essay certainly has provoked strong emotions and I understand and appreciate the dissenting view. But I am certain that the writer is not "ashamed" of Zelensky, but quite firmly the opposite, she's a huge admirer of Z's character and his presidency, and says quite bluntly that this meeting looked like a trap laid out for him. Perhaps in my intro I should have done a better job of saying that I think that a careful consideration of Z's strategic mistakes in an extremely difficult situation is not the same thing as blaming him for being attacked.
OK, but his biggest strategic mistake was assuming that he would be treated in a civilized manner and not ambushed by the President of the United States because it "would make great TV" - really he made no "apriori" strategic mistakes other than assuming that he was dealing with adults, honest brokers, professionals. ooppss. The writer, in my reading, did not explain what exactly was his strategic mistake - i.e. his planning, his approach - only his reaction, she felt, was inappropriate. that's my point. that is silly. he made no strategic mistake in entering the discussion and his reaction was appropriate. but anyway, thank you for your reply. zelenskyy will be judged well by history for this moment is my convinction. let's live 40 years and see.
When the agenda (of Trump & Vance) is humiliation of a leader, there was not much Zelensky could have done to avoid the abhorrent behaviour directed at him, with or without a strategy and/or with or without a suit. With the threat of 25% tariffs looming against Canada, Prime Minister Trudeau went to Trump’s Florida domaine to offer respect at the beginning of his presidency (to many Canadians’ chagrin). How Trump reciprocated that respect was to call the Prime Minister “Governor” and to state that Canada should & probably would be the 51st state.
Brilliant, hilarious, insightful and....There's a scene in the 1969 film Midnight Cowboy where the protagonist - a naive hustler from Texas who comes to NYC hoping to bed older ladies for money only to find himself wandering the streets in a dirty cowboy costume with his consumptive, crippled pal - happens to catch a bit of a television show featuring a small dog wearing eyelashes, false teeth, and lipstick while a live audience cackles. Based on our naive hustler's pained expression and the tip of his grotesque cowboy hat against the store's window, he could relate. This was how I felt watching Zelensky on the set of the Trump/Vance show. A bit like a costumed hustler watching a costumed dog choke on false teeth realizing that the world is full of bullies. Zelensky in his wee military costume, forced to perform for the cameras, poked and prodded by two self-righteous, sweaty sadists. Naturally, your highly informed perspective is heartening to hear, but maybe it's the trauma therapist in me that can only see this type of political theater as the Roman colosseum.
Thank you for sharing your perspective, Sana. It says so much about the critical role of cultural context when interpreting a situation and I’m intrigued by a Ukrainian pov. In the US, we have many subcultural contexts and I’m from the plain-speaking and direct state of Nebraska. My interpretation is that Trump is still furious that Zelenskyy has never bowed to him, that he wouldn’t look for Biden dirt, that he won the presidency in the first place. Trump is determined to dominate Zelenskyy, he viscerally wants to dominate him. I think Trump would ride Zelenskyy if he could. The suit brouhaha? That’s a red herring, a Mean Girl move. Churchill wore flying suits during WWII. Zelenskyy would look ridiculous showing up in a suit. I would think less of him for dressing up for Trump, who will only ever be abusive to him. All this said, please share more.
Thanks Sana for sharing an unpopular opinion and the cultural backstory. As a media person, love interviewing Eastern Europeans because they get right to the point! But I can see how it's not the most useful trait in a diplomatic setting.
The text is a reflective commentary on the recent tumultuous meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Donald Trump, and JD Vance, highlighting the cultural misunderstandings and political implications of their interactions. The author, Sana Krasikov, shares her personal perspective as a Ukrainian immigrant, noting the discomfort felt by her and her family regarding Zelensky's approach during the confrontation. She critiques Zelensky for adopting a confrontational style reminiscent of "Soviet uncles," which may not resonate well with American political norms.
Krasikov emphasizes the importance of understanding cultural dynamics in diplomacy, suggesting that Zelensky's performance was more aligned with a Ukrainian audience than an American one. She raises concerns about the potential consequences of this meeting for Ukraine's political future and speculates on the influence of Russian propaganda in American politics. Overall, the commentary underscores the complexities of international relations, the need for cultural sensitivity, and the challenges faced by leaders navigating different political landscapes.
Losing US military support now is going to be such a challenge