JD Vance's cousin Nate: Zelenskyy-Trump spat was "performance for someone who wasn't in room", possibly Putin

Nate Vance, cousin of US Vice President JD Vance, believes that comments about the appearance of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during his meeting with Donald Trump at the White House in the winter were "a play aimed at someone who was not in the room". He suggested that it may have been done for Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin.
Source: European Pravda, citing Nate Vance in an interview with German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung Magazine
Details: Nate Vance was reminded that during a visit to the Oval Office in late February, Zelenskyy was criticised on camera for not wearing a suit, and he was shown a photo of himself with JD Vance in casual clothes.
When asked if this was an act of solidarity with Zelenskyy, he responded that it was not intentional.
JD and Nate Vance.
Photo: Süddeutsche Zeitung Magazine
"I asked JD: 'Hey, I don't want to sound cynical, but I don't have a suit. Is that a problem?' He replied: 'Don't worry, just come in. We have visitors all the time'," he said.
Nate noted that JD Vance knows why Zelenskyy is not wearing a suit.
"We talked about it, he's not stupid," Nate said. "And he [JD Vance] didn't take it as disrespectful. That's one of the reasons why I think the whole show with Zelenskyy in the Oval Office was aimed at someone who wasn't in the room."
When asked if this performance could have been directed at Putin, he replied: "It's possible".
Zelenskyy has not worn a suit since the beginning of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Polish President Andrzej Duda once wished that Zelenskyy would come to one of the summits "in a suit" to symbolise the end of the war in Ukraine.
In February, a reporter asked Zelenskyy in the Oval Office why he did not wear a suit to a meeting at the US highest-level office.
"Why don't you wear a suit? Do you own a suit?" the journalist asked.
"Do you have any problems?" Zelenskyy replied.
"A lot of Americans have problems with those who don't respect the dress code of the Oval Office," the journalist replied.
After that, Zelenskyy said he would wear a suit after the Russo-Ukrainian war ends.
Background: Media reports indicate that one factor that irritated Trump at his meeting with Zelenskyy was that the Ukrainian leader did not arrive in a suit.
Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

New York Post

an hour ago

• New York Post

Don't fall for the lies about the GOP's plan for Medicaid: We're actually STRENGTHENING it

President Donald Trump has asked Congress to follow through on his domestic-policy agenda by extending tax cuts for Americans, investing in our military and border security and cutting waste, fraud and abuse in entitlement spending, which threatens the solvency our nation's safety-net programs. For my House Committee on Energy and Commerce, this meant hitting a 10-year savings target of $880 billion across our jurisdiction — energy, environment, telecommunications and health care — which I knew could only be reached through careful consideration and resolve. Advertisement The committee came through, and then some: The most recent estimate from the Congressional Budget Office found that our efforts will save nearly $1.1 trillion. More than a quarter of this amount, $344 billion, comes from new community-engagement rules (i.e., work requirements) for able-bodied adults who receive Medicaid benefits but choose not to work. The rules will promote greater accountability and refocus Medicaid to better serve the most vulnerable. Advertisement What exactly do these community-engagement requirements consist of? If you're an able-bodied, unemployed adult who receives Medicaid, they ask that you demonstrate that you are either working, volunteering, in job training or in school for an average of 80 hours per month. Health care and work are inextricably linked in this country: Nearly half of all Americans get their health insurance through their jobs, seniors get Medicare after years of contributing payroll taxes and members of our military and our veterans get their coverage through their service to our country. To require Medicaid recipients who are able-bodied and unemployed to either work, go to school or volunteer in their communities in order to continue receiving subsidized health insurance should be a no brainer. Advertisement You may have heard misinformation that work requirements are really just a sneaky way to take health care away from hard-working Americans, or even people with disabilities. Let me set the record straight: This policy applies only to able-bodied, unemployed adults who have chosen not to work. Our bill couldn't be clearer about that; it includes a long list of exempted individuals. For instance: If you're pregnant, a member of a federally designated tribe, a caregiver or parent, under 19 or over 65, you're exempt from the requirements. Advertisement You're exempt if you're medically frail, which includes anyone who's blind, disabled, battling a chronic substance-use disorder or living with a serious and complex medical condition like cancer. If you meet work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps) or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (welfare), you're also relieved of the requirements. If you're in jail, prison or were released from incarceration within the past 90 days, you're exempt. And if you're a former foster youth under 26, the requirements don't apply. Plainly, the policy is targeting just a subset of fully able adults who are voluntarily choosing not to work or give back to their communities. There are strong grounds for this policy: A new study from the American Enterprise Institute found that able-bodied, unemployed adult Medicaid recipients without dependents average 6.1 hours a day — 184 hours a month — watching television and socializing. That figure is 50% higher than for employed beneficiaries. These individuals spend less than a combined one hour a day looking for work or caring for others. Advertisement And we're only asking that, in return for their Medicaid coverage, they choose from an array of options — work, go to school or volunteer — for just 80 hours per month. That's eminently reasonable, and can help them become more self-reliant and productive. Note, too, that a sizable number — 38% of beneficiaries, per a new White House Council of Economic Advisors study — are able-bodied, working-age adults. There's no good reason for them not to be contributing to their communities or at least on a path to becoming productive. Advertisement Americans are smart enough not to fall for the false narratives, lies and smears against work requirements. They share Republicans' desires to purge government programs of rampant waste, fraud and abuse. Our requirements help do just that, strengthening Medicaid for those who truly need it. Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) is chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

an hour ago

Senate Intel Chair Cotton: 'We have to be prepared for Iran to retaliate'

The chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee said Sunday that the United States must "be prepared for Iran to retaliate" following Saturday night's strikes targeting three Iranian nuclear facilities. "We have troops in the region. Iran has targeted Americans around the world, Marine barracks in Beirut, in barracks in Saudi Arabia. They've targeted embassies of countries around the world," Cotton, R-Arkansas, said in an exclusive interview on ABC News' "This Week." "The threats are serious and we take them seriously. President Trump has no higher priority, as do I and the safety of the American people." Cotton echoed President Donald Trump's warning to Iran to opt for peace instead, saying that if Ayatollah Ali Khamenei "targets Americans with military force, he will see, will make last night look like child's play." Trump described Saturday night's strikes against Iran as "a spectacular military success" that had "completely and totally obliterated" Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities. In his interview with "This Week" co-anchor Jonathan Karl, Cotton said the full damage assessment was still underway, citing comments from Joint Chief of Staff Chair Gen. Dan Caine earlier Sunday. But, he added, "There's no doubt that because of the president's decisive action, we have severely damaged Iran's critical nuclear infrastructure."

USA Today

2 hours ago

• USA Today

Trump's gamble on Iran: Nuclear threat ended? Or the start of 'endless war'?

It's Donald Trump's war now. The decision to bomb Iran revealed the conflict between some of the president's fundamental impulses. The highest hope of President Trump's bomb attack on Iran: A rogue nuclear program that had defied a half-dozen of his predecessors has finally been destroyed. The deepest fear: Just four years after the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan ended America's longest war, the United States is now enmeshed in another war in a volatile region, with perilous and uncertain consequences. "Our objective was the destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's number one state sponsor of terror," Trump said in a late-night announcement in the East Room on June 21, interrupting Americans' Saturday night plans with news that B-2 bombers had dropped the world's most powerful conventional bombs on three sites seen as crucial to Tehran's nuclear program. "Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace." That's the calculation behind "Operation Midnight Hammer," anyway − that despite its initial bluster Tehran will be forced to abandon its nuclear program. But Trump acknowledged there were other possibilities. "Remember, there are many targets left," he said, surrounded by a solemn-looking trio of advisers − Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. "If peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speech and skill." A war between Trump's fundamental impulses The White House debate whether to launch the bombers put at odds some of Trump's most fundamental impulses. One is his fervent opposition in all three of his presidential campaigns against "forever wars," including the costly and controversial conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. His "America First" agenda reflects a determination to focus less on places like Ukraine and more on challenges close to home. While most Republican congressional leaders praised the president for the bombing, some prominent in the MAGA movement did not. "This is not our fight," Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene complained on social media. "Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war." On the other hand, Trump is also famously impatient with problems that have frustrated standard solutions. Witness, for instance, his willingness to press the limits of the law in identifying and deporting millions of undocumented immigrants. The lengthy efforts at negotiation with Iran, like much of diplomacy, seemed unlikely to reach the sort of dramatic and decisive conclusion he favors. The bombing of Iran also reflects his alliance with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who argues that Iran's nuclear program poses an existential threat to his country. For the prime minister, achieving his decades-old dream of destroying that program is the stuff of legacy. For Trump's legacy, too − a powerful message for a president who cannot run for the Oval Office again. Netanyahu struck that chord. "Congratulations, President Trump," he said in Tel Aviv. "His leadership today has created a pivot in history that can help lead the Middle East and beyond to a future of prosperity and peace." Congressional leaders notified as planes headed home For better or worse, this will be Trump's war. For one thing, he didn't seek the approval of Congress, which under the Constitution has the right to declare war though the president has broad authority to order the use of military force. The War Powers Act, passed after President Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War, requires presidents to notify Congress and limits the length of deployments. After the U.S. bombers had left Iranian air space, the administration immediately notified congressional leaders, Hegseth told reporters at a Pentagon briefing Sunday. Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said Trump had risked dragging the United States into a long war "without consulting Congress, without a clear strategy, without regard to the consistent conclusions of the intelligence community, and without explaining to the American people what's at stake." Those will be the elements of the debate ahead, in echoes of the Iraq war. How serious was the Iranian nuclear threat? And how will voters weigh the stakes and the cost? In Istanbul, Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, accused Trump of having "deceived his own voters" by launching the strike. The U.S. administration holds "sole and full responsibility for the consequences of its actions," he said. But he didn't specify whether Iran would retaliate against U.S. forces in the region. Hours after the bunker-buster bombs were dropped, Iran launched a new round of missiles toward Israel. On Monday, the foreign minister plans to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin, an ally but one who has his own war to fight.