🫏

Collins: But what specifically do you want to see President Zelenskyy apologize for?

Rubio: Well, apologize for turning this thing into the fiasco for him that it became. There was no need for him to go in there and become antagonistic. pic.twitter.com/SitI6rQznL

— Acyn (@Acyn) March 1, 2025

Zelenskyy: He broke the ceasefire. He killed our people. He did not exchange prisoners. We signed the exchange of prisoners, but he didn't do it. What kind of diplomacy you are speaking about?

Vance: I think it's disrespectful for you to come into the oval office and try to litigate this in front of them American media. pic.twitter.com/K3dvxkNLeE

— Acyn (@Acyn) February 28, 2025

That is precisely the point when Vance turned the discussion against Zelensky. Vance wasn’t discussing in good faith, he was arguing in order to attack Zelensky. I’ve been the subject of this technique. The purpose is to enrage your victim, and to point to any response they make as disingenuous and proof the victim has nothing to stand on (shift the grounds of the argument as you proceed, forcing them to wander further and further from any possible agreement, but always insist this is all the victim’s fault. After all, he came here and disrespected us trying to “litigate this in front of the American people.” (He should do it behind our backs?) And wasn’t he responding to what Vance said? Yeah, forgot about that, didn’t ya?). It’s also to keep the argument going so that reconciliation or resolution is impossible. The best way to control the argument is to ignore the content your victim’s responses while using them to start new arguments. Continue until your victim is exhausted or completely frustrated.

And it always ends with: “But he started it!” So it’s also the best way to show the world what an asshole you are.