I think it’s because he hoped there were actual guarantees, considering Trump is definitely interested in Ukraine’s mineral industry. But as the meeting went on it became increasingly clear that keeping Putin his BFF was even more important and he just wanted to have his cake and eat it too.
I mean, he was asking a question that had to be asked at one point or another. If Vance had an answer to that, he wouldn’t have lost face. If he didn’t, that means any kind of deal they could’ve made would’ve been useless (if not harmful) to Ukraine.
What would’ve he gained by not making that question? The chance to make a deal with no warranties? I feel like he’s a very good strategic thinker, and that wasn’t a choice dictated by pride or by the heat of the moment. There was nothing significant to gain by not asking that question, they would’ve just discussed the deal behind closed doors and he’d still have to refuse because Trump’s only warranty would still be “well so far he hasn’t broken promises with me, though”.
So what should’ve been the answer to Vance’s proposal of “diplomacy”, in your opinion? Do you think he shouldn’t have questioned the validity of it, in spite of the precedents? Wouldn’t that just mean accepting the deal without any guarantee of protection like it happened before?
I still think the ultimate outcome wouldn’t have changed but yeah, rewatching it he does seem a bit more provocative than in the rest of the interview. Maybe it did tick him off a bit too much and he decided to go for it in the heat of the moment.