> This is a completely bonkers take. You actually expected him to sign over an absurd mineral commitment with no agreed benefit for Ukraine?
Yes because that’s what they agreed to in advance of the meeting. The in person meeting, requested by Zelensky, was supposed to be a photo op. But he unwisely tried to steer it into a different direction and ended up losing the whole thing.
> Just toss Ukraine up on the table to be sliced up by the US and Russia?
Yes that’s traditionally what happens to the losers in a conflict. Ukraine does not have the money, guns, or soldiers to win this thing, doublely so without the USA.
Their end state in this is not going to be some pre war border as a NATO state. It’ll be losing land, losing mineral rights, and at best third party non-NATO peacekeepers manning a DMZ.
Zelenski indicated that he was willing to sign a deal if there are security guarantees. He was then presented a "deal" with no such guarantees in it. Your statements are simply false.
> Zelenski indicated that he was willing to sign a deal if there are security guarantees. He was then presented a "deal" with no such guarantees in it. Your statements are simply false.
Did you even read your own link?
>> Ukraine has agreed on the terms of a minerals deal with the United States and could sign it as early as Friday on a trip to Washington by President Volodymyr Zelensky, a senior Ukrainian official said.
And then later on:
>> The source said the draft of the deal includes a reference to "security", but does not explicitly set out the United States's role.
He agreed to the deal without any explicit guarantees. Told them he'd sign in in the USA. Then after he got here, he demanded additional things that were not part of the already agreed upon deal.
The disinformation is you claiming that they had not reached an agreement that does not include explicit security guarantees.
That’s never been disputed by Ukraine and there are multiple US sources claiming that they had come to that agreement. The only formality was actually signing it and Zelensky said he wanted to do it at the Whitehouse.
Otherwise why was he in the USA? One doesn’t fly halfway around the world for a photo op if there’s no deal in place. And there’s no record of the USA ever offering explicit security guarantees. Only the opposite.
Yes because that’s what they agreed to in advance of the meeting. The in person meeting, requested by Zelensky, was supposed to be a photo op. But he unwisely tried to steer it into a different direction and ended up losing the whole thing.
> Just toss Ukraine up on the table to be sliced up by the US and Russia?
Yes that’s traditionally what happens to the losers in a conflict. Ukraine does not have the money, guns, or soldiers to win this thing, doublely so without the USA.
Their end state in this is not going to be some pre war border as a NATO state. It’ll be losing land, losing mineral rights, and at best third party non-NATO peacekeepers manning a DMZ.