Tapper: On Earth 2 Where Kamala Harris Won, Would Democrats Be Pushing For Peace Plan?

Which headline do you like best for this Jake Tapper clip? I had a hard time choosing, lol!

1. Tapper: On Earth 2 Where Kamala Harris Won, Would Democrats Be Pushing For Peace Plan?

2. CNN Talker: How Good Can The United States Compel An End To This Conflict On Terms That Are Good For NATO?

3. Tapper: Do You Think A Smart Person Sold Trump On This To Get His Sign Off On Why We Should Care?

Transcript-

CNN Talker: He has potentially other help now from European allies. You've got the Brits now and the French that are willing to provide potentially peacekeeping forces. All of that shows that Zelensky is interested in peace, something that the administration called into question because of the Oval Office breakdown. But I think Zelensky now in this point is in a waiting position to see how the Trump administration responds.

Jake Tapper: So on Earth-Two where Kamala Harris won, would Democrats be pushing for a peace plan at some point as well? I mean, this is a lot of money. It doesn't seem as though, it does seem like Russia's winning. A Ukrainian told me that. Obviously in a perfect world, you know, Putin wouldn't have invaded and Ukraine could keep all its territory. I guess what I'm asking is wouldn't any peace deal under any president require some territorial concession to the aggressor Russia?

CNN Talker: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, we were in a bad position. It was much easier to deter the aggression. It's much harder at this point to compel the aggressor to get back out of that territory. So you're gonna have to have some kind of peace agreement. The question, of course, has always been on what terms? How good can the United States compel an end to this conflict on terms that are good for Ukraine, that so Ukraine can remain strong, secure, sovereign in some sense, and also for NATO. Because NATO, you know those Eastern European countries are very concerned that if there isn't a strong, robust European security guarantee that Putin is just gonna restart aggression.

Jake Tapper: You think. I've seen you argue and that's one of the reasons you're here, cause I thought it was so interesting. You think that people are not seeing the rare earth minerals deal in the same way you are, which is you think it's like this is a way to guarantee the United States will care about Ukraine's sovereignty and survival.

CNN Talker: One of the things that has been a hallmark of the Trump administration is to try to take abstract ideas and make them concrete for the American people. So rather than the Biden administration said, look, this is democracy versus autocracy. Trump is saying, I'm talking about no kidding. Rare earth minerals for the benefit of the American people, we're invested in the security of Ukraine. That is great for Ukraine to have the United States and Ukraine having deeper, more concrete ties. President Trump even said whenever he was talking to you of office to reporters, he said, listen, we're gonna have European peacekeepers, potentially the French and the Brits. Serious fierce people need bigger militaries but serious fierce people. And he said, and listen, I haven't ruled out potentially Americans. It was sort of an offhand comment, but I think it's interesting that President Trump is saying, look, let's get vested, let's get. Ukraine has like something like 3, 5% of the planet's rare earth minerals where the United States has 1 to 2%. So there's great benefit for the United States. It's my hope that Zelensky sees that this is the necessary path to getting the United States to commit for a long term benefit of Ukraine.

Jake Tapper: No, you're not a psycho, psychoanalyst. But let me ask you, do you think President Trump sees it the way you do? This is a way to get something out of it and also like help Ukraine. Or do you think some smart person sold President Trump on this argument to get his sign off on why we should care?

______________

Jake Tapper asked, “So on Earth-Two where Kamala Harris won, would Democrats be pushing for a peace plan at some point as well?” but didn’t even let her answer that. He completely changed the question.

Two other things these two said stand out to me. First, the Hudson Institute woman remarked, “The question, of course, has always been on what terms? How good can the United States compel an end to this conflict on terms that are good for Ukraine, that so Ukraine can remain strong, secure, sovereign in some sense, and also for NATO.” Did you catch that? “How good can the United States compel an end to this conflict on terms that are good for NATO?!” That’s the Deep State’s real priority slipping out—NATO’s interests over everything else.

Then, at the end, Tapper asked, “Do you think President Trump sees it the way you do? This is a way to get something out of it and also like help Ukraine. Or do you think some smart person sold President Trump on this argument to get his sign off on why we should care?" Nice one, Jake—suggesting Trump needs a sales pitch to “sign off on why we should care” about Ukraine, as if he’s too callous or clueless