1. If you wanted minerals because of strategic concerns, you would not source them from a State which has been invaded by Russia. This is not a stable, reliable source.
2. The deal we saw details for was a jointly controlled fund for investment, where 50% of profit of State owned mining and related infrastructure would be deposited. There's no mention there of mineral supply to the US.
I did not understand it, and I still see no sense in it.
What was actually going on?
We saw Donald try to bounce Z into signing : "you have one hour to sign this".
That obviously shattered any trust that might have been there.
I don't think we ever saw the text of that first deal.
Then the second deal was just this jointly controlled investment fund, which looked like a face-saver.
In any event, USA is now out of the game.
A coup is in the process of occurring, and once the judges and courts are subverted, will be complete.
All this with the deal and D and Z is basically water under the bridge; EU has to stand on its own two feet now, and that's the situation here and now, however we got here.
1. It provides a way for Ukraine to become a client of US defense instead of a an aid recipient. That is, it allows Ukraine to pay for the weapons it receives.
2. It puts Americans on the ground in Ukraine in a non-military capacity. This introduces a new diplomatic dimension, as attacking or occupying land with significant American presence is not desirable.
3. It provides money for an investment fund for rebuilding Ukraine.
Whether this is an effective strategy, I don't know.
> 1. It provides a way for Ukraine to become a client of US defense instead of a an aid recipient. That is, it allows Ukraine to pay for the weapons it receives.
The text I saw was for the formation of a jointly (US/UA) owned entity which would decide how to reinvest 50% of the profits from UA State owned minerals/related infrastructure.
Unless "reinvest" means "give to US", I don't see this point happening.
> 2. It puts Americans on the ground in Ukraine in a non-military capacity. This introduces a new diplomatic dimension, as attacking or occupying land with significant American presence is not desirable.
In what way? we're not talking about any US State investment, and any US private investment would be crazy, given the war and possibility of future war. No one would invest there.
> 3. It provides money for an investment fund for rebuilding Ukraine.
It's money that exists anyway, only now it's in a fund jointly controlled by US/UA rather than being controlled only by UA.
> reinvest 50% of the profits from UA State owned minerals/related infrastructure.
Small correction: 50% of Ukraine's government revenue from natural resource extraction (minus some expenses).
> Unless "reinvest" means "give to US", I don't see this point happening.
You're right. There may be some options when the fund is actually formed, but the current deal almost exclusively benefits Ukraine (financially).
> In what way? we're not talking about any US State investment
It's up to the US how much they want to invest. If they put a lot of money into the fund, they get a lot of control over how Ukraine starts rebuilding. But due to how the fund is financed, the US will be bought out in the long run and the fund will turn into a Ukrainian sovereign one.
> It's money that exists anyway, only now it's in a fund jointly controlled by US/UA rather than being controlled only by UA.
The idea probably being to allow US oversight. Ukraine is incredibly corrupt and its government is fighting a loosing battle against this.
If a corrupt construction contracter pockets 80% of the money given to him and Ukraine tries to prosecute him, he'll just move to Portugal and nothing is ever going to happen to him.
On the other hand, if the US files charges, that contractor is going to have a really bad time.
Combined with the much superior talent pool in finance and international business available in the US, a lot more money should find its way to its intended purposes.
> Ukraine is incredibly corrupt and its government is fighting a loosing battle against this.
I hear this of this. I lived there for a year, fairly recently, in Kyiv. I didn't particularly see it, hear of it, or encounter it. I remember one or two stories of people being convicted of taking bribes, that's it. I didn't see it around me, or hear it from locals.
I may be completely wrong, but I think this isn't any more of an issue than any other post-Soviet country, and with the war on, UA doing an awful lot now to sort it out, because it relates to survival.
US gets to decide how at least half the fund gets spent, so it's US businesses who get the investment and eventually reap the profits. Ukraine obviously doesn't have the cash to give back and it will never have any without reconstruction. This is one way US gets anything at all back at a pace it has any control over.
But you are correct that without security guarantees there will be no development, no reconstruction, no investments. The deal just does nothing.
I think there's two (perhaps more) possibilities you've overlooked, that may go some way to explaining this.
First, that Donald is not the master negotiator / business genius he claims, and is not open to taking advice from smarter people.
Second, misdirection. It may be something to draw attention - the whole 'who needs batteries for their car company?' thing - or it might be a decoy offer, never intended to be seriously contemplated, but will serve as an easy-for-the-dumbs-to-understand future-date hand-wavey explanation for why negotiations failed. (This seems more palatable if you already believe the current US administration is compromised.)
The US has legal reasons now. Ukraine is a sovereign country and would be more than happy to accept US military bases. The US hasn't sent soldiers because they don't want to go to war with Russia
Why would US get involved now when they have nothing to gain and possibly escalate the situation to WW3?
If US owned resources in Ukraine, they have very good reason to deploy troops over there. Russia won't escalate the situation by attacking american resources and troop. This should slow down the war to a good extent combined with the cease fire agreements.
Your logic doesn't make sense. Why would Russia be willing to escalate to ww3 in the first scenario but back down in the second scenario?
And if getting involved will escalate to ww3, what difference does those resource deals make? Either american involvement (via NATO or this mineral deal logic) forces Russia to back down or it doesn't.
US signed memorandum of security for Ukraine. Not involving into Ukraine war means:
1. Nuke is the only option to guarantee security. Everyone should get one. Iran, Venezuela etc.
2. If you have nukes you can occupy neighbors with little/no punishment. Taiwan is the next in line.
3. US is not an ally, could not be trusted in any way.
Sad to see how Trump is dismantling USA from it's role as a global superpower.
1. Nuke doesn't guarantee anything in current situation. Russia might blow up the nuke moment it arrives in Ukr.
2. US France UK has made it very clear that they can occupy and establish military bases in non nuclear countries without repercussions, especially in Middle East and Africa.
3. Memorandum was signed by multiple nuclear countries and none of thier troops are deployed in Ukraine. Besides US was the largest supplier of weapons in Ukraine.
US is hardly affected by Ukr situation. For them to get involved, there should be something at stake. If they owned something in Ukr, they would have reason to defend it with US troops. Russia won't escalate by attacking US troops or resources.
> First, that Donald is not the master negotiator / business genius he claims
We're talking about someone who appears to believe a trade deficit means you're somehow being screwed or getting the short end of a deal. That's mercantilistic nonsense. It's economical thinking on par with a child who believes Scrooge McDuck is a good capitalist.
I think it's likely they know Putin will not honor any peace deal. So they have to figure out a way to blow up this deal and blame it on Ukraine or they'll end up with egg on their face.
There is one way in which it could make sense. If the US is able to extract economic benefits from Ukrainian territory, then it is likely to help Ukraine defend that territory in order to get those benefits.
Now whether those benefits are lucrative enough to warrant the US' help, I think not, which is why the deal apparently included no guarantees. The $500 billion is completely bullshit - they're not worth that much.
I would be extremely surprised if the other half of this profit fund was not eventually meant to go into Trump's pockets rather than to the United States itself.
I think they realized this, and the only way Trump and JD Vance & team knew how to backtrack on it, was to behave like bullies and freeze Zelensky out. Since they are well known to be bullies already (but not always), this came sort of naturally.
This is a puppet government of the US that was installed in 2014 after they overthrew a Russian puppet government. Of course the previous US administration gave tons of support - Obama's people installed Zelensky, so Biden continuing the support makes sense. Biden's family has also made a lot of money in Ukraine under the current regime, so it was personal for him. As for Europe, this is existential for them and it's cheaper to spend Ukrainian lives on this than their own. What is missing is any other international support from parties who aren't directly interested in this conflict, like India pressuring China to stop supporting Russia.
Where is it wrong, though? Here are a few pointers:
Ukraine was Victoria Nuland's project. Her CIA had a huge hand in the protests against Yanakovich (who was, in turn, an asset of Putin's GRU), and she personally had a hand in negotiating with Yanakovich on behalf of the protestors. You should read about the events in Ukraine in 2014. That overthrow led to the retaliatory capture of Crimea, where the US and EU apparently did not learn their lesson about how much of a madman Putin is.
As for the Biden Ukraine connection, I'm sure Hunter Biden is just secretly very talented at managing oil companies, which is why he was put on the board of Burisma in 2014, after Nuland's little coup. I believe the "10% for the big guy" quote was in reference to this deal, too.
As for this being an existential threat to Europe, I'm not even sure you need to be given the facts about having a madman like Putin edging closer to your borders, while also depending on him for energy.
Finally, on supporting your puppet governments: it's basic game theory that you should do this. Otherwise all the other ones (see much of Latin America) get overthrown.
>They are doing fine with him there, and he has not done well at gathering support internationally
I really do admire your ability to live in reality that is not at all correlated with base reality. And from an Iranian as well. I noticed that Trump and his team do this a lot as well, along with Putin. What do all of these have in common?
1. If you wanted minerals because of strategic concerns, you would not source them from a State which has been invaded by Russia. This is not a stable, reliable source.
2. The deal we saw details for was a jointly controlled fund for investment, where 50% of profit of State owned mining and related infrastructure would be deposited. There's no mention there of mineral supply to the US.
I did not understand it, and I still see no sense in it.
What was actually going on?
We saw Donald try to bounce Z into signing : "you have one hour to sign this".
That obviously shattered any trust that might have been there.
I don't think we ever saw the text of that first deal.
Then the second deal was just this jointly controlled investment fund, which looked like a face-saver.
In any event, USA is now out of the game.
A coup is in the process of occurring, and once the judges and courts are subverted, will be complete.
All this with the deal and D and Z is basically water under the bridge; EU has to stand on its own two feet now, and that's the situation here and now, however we got here.