The US and Ukraine have agreed to an outline of terms for their so-called minerals deal. We don’t know if the parties have included the usual caveat in US letters of intent, that the agreement is not binding or whether any durable commitment, whether now or in a definitive agreement, requires the approval of Ukraine’s parliament, the Rada, which would give Ukraine the ability to walk away from the scheme or force an improvement in its provisions. The fact that the main provisions are now much more Ukraine favorable than at the outset means the Rada may well bless the agreement, particularly since the press has reported that the US will continue to provide military support for Ukraine, in the form of air defenses.
As we’ll explain below, our prediction that this deal would be a spoiler as far as normalization of US-Russia relations look every bit as operative as we predicted from the get-go.
We had warned from the outset that the so-called Ukraine “raw earths” deal conflicted with the US agreeing to a settlement of the Ukraine conflict by creating an economic incentive for the US to support Ukraine in retaining as much territory as possible.
Even with the development opportunities not all that juicy, neocon pot-stirrers eager to add to the list of purported Russian dirty deeds will argue otherwise. The fact that the most valuable resources, such as shale gas reserves and lithium deposits, sit disproportionately in parts of Ukraine currently or predictably soon to be under Russian control would become another bloody flag. The fact that the most attractive assets are already being exploited (and as we’ll see below, are excluded from the current scheme) would not be mentioned in polite company.
And even those on the Trump team who are more Russia-favorable will have their view of what this “deal” is worth tainted by the cognitive bias called the endowment effect.1 Humans have an odd tendency to value things they have as worth more than the same item not in their possession.
And the “not Russia hostile” camp is also running into the headwinds of US public opinion. As John Helmer pointed out:
… follow the seven charts. Take note of the last one – this shows that despite growing disapproval by US voters of the President’s performance in office, most Americans think Trump’s policy towards Russia is “too friendly”. This sentiment is holding strong at all education levels, for blacks and Hispanics, and across all age groups, except for the middle-aged (50-64). The most anti-Russian Americans recorded in this new poll appear to be Harris voters and black protestants.
Another factor that will tend to poison Trump’s relationship with Russia is his failure to deliver on his loud and much-repeated pledge to settle the Ukraine conflict in 24 hours. Trump’s bluster and bullying were no match for the non-negotiable Putin or even the conniver Zelensky. The minerals deal is thus a timely distraction from this embarrassment. It may serve to bolster the barmy claim that somehow Trump won.
From our February post, Trump Will End His Option of Walking Away from Project Ukraine with His Minerals Deal:
WE TOLD YOU SO. From a February 15 post:
Most commentators took the Trump talk of owning or getting rights to Ukraine’s minerals to be bluster. Yours truly remarked otherwise, that this looked like a way for Trump to justify and get funding for a continued US participation, even if at a lower level than under Biden, by presenting it as a loan. This would make it the bastard cousin of the Ursuala von der Leyen plan to issue bonds against Russian frozen assets to which it does not have good title.
Admittedly, the sketchy-seeming minerals agreement between the US and Ukraine, widely reported in Western media, has yet to be consummated (more on that soon). But as its contours emerge, other commentators are reaching the same conclusion that we did from the get-go: that it would not just provide Trump with a pretext to continue funding the war, but having an economic interest in Ukraine’s survival would give the Administration a reason to keep Ukraine fighting. Crudely speaking, the more territory the Ukraine state can hold, the more the US can
lootdevelop…In keeping, notice the title on the Financial Times map below. As we’ll see, the related article makes clear the pact does not include a formal military commitment, but Trump’s patter and the change in US incentives, make it hard to think that the US will stop supplying Ukraine with arms and funds.
Regardless, we were not alone in noticing Boris Johnson’s unseemly enthusiasm for this agreement:
Boris Johnson endorses the Trump/Ukraine minerals deal, comparing it to lend-lease for Britain in WWII. He says it will ensure long-term US funding of Ukraine, and contains provisions Putin will never accept. Why do the most hardcore Ukraine war supporters love this deal so much? pic.twitter.com/xXcEywqfe6
— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) February 25, 2025
Before you think our take that a “raw earths” deal would give the US reason to protect its interest, even if it was more PR/vaporware than real, consider this section from the initial (and deemed to be outrageously one-sided) outline of terms:
The Government of the United States of America supports Ukraine’s efforts to obtain security guarantees needed to establish lasting peace. Participants will seek to identify any necessary steps to protect mutual investments, as defined in the Fund Agreement.
As we pointed out in February:
Now in fairness, this document is so loosey-goosey that Trump could later make all sorts of excuses why he walked away, not that Trump has ever been big on consistency. But he made so much noise about what a great deal this agreement was that he is pretty certain to show commitment to it for at least a while….which means more arms and money, which mean the Ukraine war has now become Trump’s war.
Fast forward to the current state of play. A Ukraine source posted a purported summary of key terms. The text of Radu Hossu’s tweet:
The agreement on rare minerals between Ukraine and the USA has been signed. It is an agreement of net benefit to Ukraine compared to all previous iterations:
– Ukraine will have full ownership of the resources;
– The agreement only covers future exploration, exploitation and refining projects, not existing ones already in Ukraine’s operation;
– Ukraine will decide what these will be;
– A fund (called the Ukrainian Reconstruction Investment Fund for Reconstruction of Ukraine) will be set up in which Ukraine and the US have 50-50 participation without US veto power from the initial agreement projects;
– All Ukrainian companies that are responsible for energy resources remain 100% Ukrainian state-owned (Ukrnafta or Energoatom);
– It was agreed that Ukraine owes no financial debt for wartime economic aid to the US;
– The agreement is within the limits of Ukrainian law and in no way infringes on Ukraine’s economic sovereignty, indeed Bessent stated that the US strongly supports Ukraine’s accession to the European Union;
– It was agreed that the US will provide not only technological transfer for the development of the new projects, but also financial support on the basis of 50% of their value, but (ATTENTION!!!) also their protection, through anti-aircraft defense systems;
– Ukraine will also invest 50% from the state budget;
– ALL funds will be in the first years invested only in the reconstruction of Ukraine (over a period of 10 years);
—-
I was skeptical that this would happen, but an extremely professional and incredibly well-sourced and connected lady told me two months ago thus: “Radu, trust me when I tell you, it will be good for Ukraine”. It was hard for me to believe her. Madam, thank you for giving me hope.Officially, if this agreement will be implemented, which I expect it will, it turns Ukraine into a strategic partner of the US. I can’t help but think in these moments as I read this extraordinary news of that meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump in St. Peter’s Basilica.
Pope Francis, wherever you are, thank you.
The Financial Times account validates the notion (albeit in a much more hedged manner) that the Ukraine side sees the agreement as including air defense support:
Both sides cheered the deal. Scott Bessent, the US Treasury secretary, said in a statement that the US was “committed to helping facilitate the end of this cruel and senseless war”.
He added the deal “signals clearly to Russia that the Trump Administration is committed to a peace process centred on a free, sovereign, and prosperous Ukraine over the long term”.
Ukraine’s first deputy prime minister, Yulia Svyrydenko, celebrated the deal in a post on X, saying: “On behalf of the Government of Ukraine, I signed the Agreement on the Establishment of a United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund…
Svyrydenko said the US, in addition to making financial contributions to the fund, might offer further support, including air defence systems…
After concerns in Kyiv over whether the deal would violate Ukraine’s sovereignty and disrupt its path towards EU membership, Svyrydenko said her negotiators ensured the language complied with her country’s constitution “and maintains Ukraine’s European integration course”.
John Helmer, in the aforementioned interview with Nima of Dialogue Works, confirmed our concerns, based on an earlier edition of the Financial Times story cited above. Starting at 17:45:
And in the last couple of hours, we’ve seen a new propaganda line from the Ukrainians. They’ve said, they’ve told the FT, the Financial Times in London, the Japanese-owned propaganda outlet, very hostile to Russia, the Ukrainians have said they are sending their deputy prime minister to Washington to sign the so-called minerals agreement but it may not be signed because they’ve hit a significant difference. The US wants the Ukraine to repay, Trump’s words, Trump’s concept, the $100 billion to $300 billion number that counts to being the value of US assistance to the war so far. The Ukrainians have said we are taking that out, and that the US capital investment in mining rare earths and other minerals and energy in Ukraine, this capital contribution should be counted forward, to the future, for US military aid. Which means that the Ukrainians have gotten an undertaking that there will be ongoing US military assistance to the Ukraine. That’s really important. It’s not noticed by the FT, but the Ukrainians have been led to believe by Trump that he will go on supporting the Ukraine with military aid. But the Ukrainians say we’ll count that future against what we will concede to be the US right to dig minerals and mining energy out of the Ukraine.
Now that’s not just a little disagreement between the Ukrainians and the Americans. It’s a big one because of what it reveals. The US has promised to continue military aid, intelligence sharing, all the elements of the war against Russia. But they can’t agree on how it will be offset by the payback mechanism Trump is using.
Mind you, the US is fabulously agreement incapable and Trump has managed to be even more so. The Trump side may have made this commitment, or insinuation, in bad faith. Or it may intend to take its chances with getting Congressional approval for what it will present as a limited arms package to protect its investment in Ukraine. Or it could resort to gimmickry, like guaranteeing a bond issue. If the Administration can’t get the spending authorized, it can tell Ukraine it tried.
The pink paper in the story we quoted also said:
Under the agreement, the Ukrainian state determines what natural resources are extracted, with Svyrydenko saying it outlined an “equal partnership”, with the fund “structured on a 50/50 basis”.
Now anyone who has worked on investments knows that the amount invested by each party does not have to equate to their level of control. Private equity and hedge fund limited partnerships are classic examples, with institutional investors providing nearly all the money yet legally relegated to a passive status, save for limited veto rights.2
However, based on having repeatedly advised financial institutions and investors on joint ventures, a true 50/50 deal is the kiss of death. One party has to be in charge from a governance perspective.
Let’s consider another way that this deal looks set to become what Putin has called3 an apple of discord. There will be no negotiated settlement of the war between Russia and Ukraine. That means Russia continues to prosecute the war and take more territory until it sees fit to stop. For the sake of this thought experiment, assume Russia prostrates Ukraine, takes control of a big swathe of Ukraine in the south and east that includes Odessa, Mykolaiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Sumy, and Kharkiv oblasts, and installs a puppet government in western Ukraine with a neutral status and a limited degree of autonomy once denazification has been completed.
Many commentators have argued the Ukraine minerals deal was worthless because no development could happen until the war was over, there was no assurance as to what territory would remain in Ukraine’s hands, and even if the country retained a fair bit of terrain, development would also depend on other basic infrastructure being in place, which was not a given (consider for starters electricity).
But that is not how a legalistic finance person would think. They believe they hold valuable development rights. One could see the Trump administration seeking compensation, and using the failure of Russia to oblige as a justification to seize the $67 billion in dollar-denominated Russian frozen assets as liquidated damages.
To put it another way, the minerals pact was certain to be a source of conflict with Russia were it ever to get done. The fact that the Administration pursued the deal so aggressively said it valued a splashy but low to no value win over normalizing relations with Russia. The US foot-dragging over simple steps to restore routine diplomatic operations, like returning seized embassy properties and setting up bank accounts for the payment of US expenses, indicated the US was unserious about the exercise independent of a Ukraine settlement. Or alternatively, this episode is yet another instance of Trump being all tactics and no strategy, pursing opportunities and options with no consideration of whether they are taking Trump and the US to an attractive destination.
____
In behavioral finance, the endowment effect, or divestiture aversion as it is sometimes called, describes a circumstance in which an individual places a higher value on an object that they already own than the value they would place on that same object if they did not own it.
This type of behavior is typically triggered with items that have an emotional or symbolic significance to the individual. However, it can also occur merely because the individual possesses the object in question.
Let’s look at an example. An individual obtained a case of wine that was relatively modest in terms of price. If an offer were made at a later date to acquire that wine for its current market value, which is marginally higher than the price that the individual paid for it, the endowment effect might compel the owner to refuse this offer, despite the monetary gains that would be realized by accepting the offer.
So, rather than take payment for the wine, the owner may choose to wait for an offer that meets their expectation or drink it themselves. The actual ownership has resulted in the individual overvaluing the wine. Similar reactions, driven by the endowment effect, can influence the owners of collectible items, or even companies, who perceive their possession to be more important than any market valuation.
2 And those are virtually entirely for show. The right to trigger them is in the hands of an advisory committee….which the general partner stacks so that investors friendly to them hold a majority of votes.
3 With respect to the prospect of Russia taking control of Odessa.
TYPO confirmed our concerned
Given the super-extraordinary performance of US/NATO “Air defenses” in the Red Sea and elsewhere, I wonder if their deployment to the Ukraine would overmuch impress the collective “Putin”. Seems like the Russians are holding the greater part of their powder dry for a real war. IMO, it might not be a good idea to test their resolve or capabilities based on the past performance of both sides.
Oh, I never suggested it would work. The US is about out of Patriots, which I believe is our best system. This is US exceptionalism running on brand fumes.
The other issue is, what private sector mining company wants to risk getting their facilities bombed in an active war zone? The mere presence of air defense indicates hostility, and no AD system is perfect.
Anything so vulnerable as to require AD surrounding it is a non-starter for civilian businesses. Imagine if Microsoft HQ had to put Patriots around the perimeter? Statistically, it is only a matter of time before one or two missiles get through.
Yeah, the US bonding itself with the most corrupt country in Europe and run by Nazis trying to put together a mining deal when the battle lines are still in motion. Oh, and much of the electrical grid is now ash which you kinda need for mines and most of the industry lies in what is now the Russian Federation. What’s not to like?
Yes, it should have occurred to me that this is actually just a big money laundering scheme where we have yet to discern how it operates.
When the war is over, the government of the rump Ukraine will have no legal obligation to adhere to the agreements of the previous criminal regime. I do slightly fret that it’s a propaganda victory for a certain floating pond biofilm of European politicians like Starmer and Macron, who will leverage that head of terms around air support for the next few months until silly season. Still, this is not a full agreement so either party can conceivably walk away without penalty.
Did you not read the post in full?
Ukraine even if the former state is legally disappeared (as opposed to a new government being regime-changed in) may still have an argument it has enforceable property rights. People who had gold and paintings stolen by the Nazis were sometimes able to recover them.. In other words, property rights under the former legal regime were sometimes considered to have survived the obliteration of the regime.
In other words, the default assumption that property rights are wiped clean in war is often not accurate, particularly since clearing up who has title to what is often a pre-condition to reconstruction. See here for one paper on this big topic: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3663092
With respect to this admittedly barmy-seeming agreement, IMHO it could easily serve to legitimate a US seizure of Russia’s dollar-denominated frozen assets.
I wouldn’t reply without reading the post, I know the brief. Appreciate your reply to my comment.
I haven’t read the full article you linked but will.
My understanding of international law on this subject is that there is a distinction made between private and public, where the contract is between the criminal regime and another country, versus private entities or individuals, who retain a right of restitution. If Ukraine granted rights of first exploitation to the US on Ukrainian public assets I think those can be disputed by a successor regime. My read of the text is that there is no enforcement mechanism or choice of forum for disputes, so good luck to anyone who bids on the assets.
If this is a treaty between the two states then the normal rules apply. They are different from the rights of individuals, because in general states do not have property rights in the normal property law sense. If the treaty has a withdrawal clause, which would be normal, then this or any other government can exercise it and stop the process. So it will be important to see whether the eventual treaty contains such a clause or not. In the case of a substantial change of regime (eg after some kind of civil war) a complicated thing called the doctrine of succession comes into operation, which is regulated by this treaty. Generally speaking, succession rights are voluntary (eg Russia has inherited a lot of treaty obligations from the former Soviet Union.) Of course commercial agreements between foreign companies and the state of Ukraine are a different, and even more complex issue.
I suspect that the Trump Admin, being who they are, will contract the management of the fund to a private sector fund manager. Normally that would make them just an agent and the most they might arguably have in “property” rights would be for their carried interest…..except in the US, that is typically just a profit share, while in other countries, a true “carry” comes about by having an economic interest (as in making an actual $ contribution to the fund, even if borrowed, so having downside risk).
And I may not have been clear…Trump as we know is not big on the fine points. So if there is any historical example of post-conflict parties successfully asserting their property rights (as in the old German Jewish account holders at Swiss Bank), Trump could toss that out as part of his pretext for seizing the Russian frozen assets to compensate for the US loss of Ukraine development rights. It merely has to be a talking point, as opposed to being sound.
Well, first, this isn’t a treaty. So it is not binding on a future Ukrainian or US government.
And second, states can have property rights, and assert them as in eminent domain (seizing private property for a public purpose, and sometimes not-so-public, as in Kelo.)
In fact, the whole US property law system derived from medieval England, where the King or Queen owned all the land. Feudal Lords were given an interest in land in exchange for providing the King with men and materials for the British Army. So in a sense, the US government does have property rights, and in some cases such as when an estate owner dies without any heirs or devisees, the property gets transferred to the state in a process called escheatment.
I’m saying this not to be pedantic but to point out that it is more of a grey area than people realize. Not sure how it works in France.
If Zelensky and his gobernment/regime is “illegitimate”, why any contract they entered in would be legitimate?
Like somebody fraudulently gets the property docs of my house and sells it, that doesn’t mean the buyer has the right to kick me out from my place, does it?
Plus, Zelensky was elected on the promise to make peace with Russia…
Boris and the City also love money laundering schemes.
I have a short memory.
This AM either Larry Johnson or Simplicius observed that this was tried in Iraq.
The result is no profit, no rebuild and Iran has a lot of influence in Iraq
For Kiev: no rebuild and Russia Federation has what it demands.
The minerals deal is thus a timely distraction from this embarrassment. It may serve to bolster the barmy claim that somehow Trump won.
That about sums it up and shows the level of incompetency and childish mentality of the US regime, as if we need any more confirmation. The emperor wants to be a “winner” when it is obvious he is a “loser” and also a cognitively-challenged (or even unhinged) laughingstock. Yet even the “liberal” mass media love him, as well as the intl. media. Most US media outlets (like during JB’s tenure) cover for his meltdowns, contradictory statements, and lies. As noted, we will have to wait and see how the drama plays out.
The level of kakistocracy should be quite obvious at this point , yet it seems many observers have a hard time coming to grips with the fact that the US regime is packed with imbeciles and buffoons at best, drug-addled unhinged types at worst.
Yves and others did tell us that the proposals were not bluster. This all made sense and fit with the larger context. Also, I recall a couple of years ago Michael Hudson predicting that Ukraine would be saddled with onerous and odious debt that it could not repay, and would thus have to surrender it’s natural resources, infrastructure etc. to foreign creditors.
The DT2 regime renewed the sanctions against Russia and has not done much to repair relations with Russia other than the usual blah blah. I would be surprised if the US stopped supporting Ukraine any time soon.
Putin has rightly observed that the Zelensky govt. is illegitimate. How can an agreement be made with an unstable, illegitimate govt in the first place? The whole thing seems quite dodgy to say the least.
Thanks for the report. The repayment/future payment dispute sounds like the same roadblock as before. Some of us have given up trying to understand what Trump might do next but clearly his self perception as being some kind of genius is all important to him and not just a joke. Is that the only thing behind his insistence on some kind of deal?
The latest warblogger line as represented by Simplicius is that the Russians are building up their reserves as though in anticipation of years of future conflict. Before the election the Russians were said to expect Trump to be much the same as Biden. Here’s suggesting they don’t have much trust in Trump even while humoring him if it might somehow help.
Are you suggesting that there are other things important to Trump, besides his self perception?
What would surprise me if Trump continues military support for Ukraine is that it would seem to weaken the desired pivot to China. I’d expect continued intramural fights between the Russia and China hawks. Or maybe this deal is driven more by Trump’s need for some visible diplomatic “win” as the impact of empty cargo ships hits and Ukraine should prepare for disappointment.
If Russia is forced to continue fighting and the probability of normalising relations with the US becomes increasingly unlikely, the character of the Russian war will change profoundly and Russia will start to knock out US intel gathering assets and the objective will be to clear and take more land, particularly the areas which contain the resources the US desires. The US will end up with increasing involvement in Ukraine which will diminish any capacity it may have to successfully pursue any war against Iran and China. Indeed, Russia may invite the Chinese, Iran and other onlookers to witness and learn how best to pursue the kind of landwar and provide some battlefield experience for their militaries.
I think the Russians have given Trump an opportunity to establish himself as a peace president but he seems willing to allow himself as become just another Yank with an oversized capacity to lose a war which I suspect will develop on fiour fronts when the US doesn’t even have the capacity to fight a war on one front, apart from genociding Palestinians by supplying weapons and funds to the Zionists in the Levant. The Europeans may kick in with a couple of colonels and a blind dog with Kaja Kallas traipsing alongside armed with her favourite washig machine but that might solve more problems for Russia than it creates – at least it will clarify the battlelines and place all opposing countries, including the US, in the target zone – which in normal circumstances should concentrate even the weakest minds, but the current Western “leaders”, with only a few exceptions, are not the shapest knives in the drawer and are largely the equivalent of plastic spoons. Trump has, in effect, placed himself in a position in which a nuclear exchange will become more rather than less likely.
Or am I being unnecesarily alarmist?
In typical Orwellian fashion: the “peace” pres. bombs Yemen, fully supports more Genocide in Palestine, imposes more siege warfare against Venezuela, Cuba etc. Threatens China with more sanctions, tariffs and military provocations and so on…. In the USA, sending 10s of billions in cash and weapons to a foreign country to slaughter children is considered “patriotic”, not a form of treason or war crime. We have to genocide Palestine to have “peace”. Anyone who disagrees will be deported/exiled and charged with anti-Semitic hate crime and being “un-American”. They can disappear folks and torture them for their “anti-Semitism” to set an example and terrorize anyone who disagrees..
Alarmist? Maybe, maybe not: The Doomsday Clock is at 89 seconds to midnight.
With a slight adjustment:
“Anti-American” crime of being “Anti-Semitic”
That’s the current American politics, in a nutshell.
All tactics and no strategy: Trump just needed a “win” because it’s quite evident that his tariffs are already a huge disaster. Trump’s schemes always boil-down to money-laundering and arbitrage of political corruption, but this “deal” is mainly a diversion. Look over there! I suspect that the “Ukrainians” have no intention of giving up their minerals. Send more missiles. You can dig later. This is just more theater…
President Putin spent yesterday in Volgograd (Stalingrad) tying Victory Day celebrations of the defeat of nazism to the sacrifices of the Russian Federation (70 percent of military casualties) and to the Special Military Operation. Meanwhile, Tass reports that former-President Dmitry Medvedev spun the “Minerals Deal” as the end of unfettered U.S. military aid to “Ukraine”: “Now, the country that is about to disappear will have to use its national wealth to pay for military supplies.“
RE: ” …the sketchy-seeming minerals agreement…”
I suspect any minerals are going to come in a Flintstones bottle, with some vitamins thrown in for no extra charge.
‘One could see the Trump administration seeking compensation, and using the failure of Russia to oblige as a justification to seize the $67 billion in dollar-denominated Russian frozen assets as liquidated damages.’ — I think this is the main purpose of the US-UKR minerals deal. It gives the USA a legal reason (thus far lacking) to confiscate permanently (i.e., steal) any frozen RU central bank assets. The USA wins even when UKR loses. Well played, tactically.
Strategically, it does nothing to help UKR and nothing to stop RU from attaining its military aims. Meanwhile, Gaza burns and China grows ever stronger militarily, while USA-RU relations remain awful. But strategy isn’t Trump’s thing.
A recent detail that received little coverage in the western media: Nikolai Patrushev (ex-head of FSB and a very close Putin advisor) hinted that Odessa is unlikely to be part of UKR after the fighting stops. This is a significant development. Russian link here:
https://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/681073429a794739d2ea9744
Many thanks for tracking a deal that is giving me a strong vibe of vu jà dé. I seem to recall that the Iraq war was going to pay for itself and that the oil would just flow and flow, all supervised by the largest embassy complex in the Middle East. I have heard of a few bumps since in that glorious resource grab.
The last two paragraphs of the article sum up the situation for me: Trump as real-estate developer who thinks mainly about how much real estate he can control: Much space! To develop! Somehow! Likewise, I think that we are also seeing that the U S of A in general is the land of no strategy and poorly thought out tactics. (E.g., I am running across reports of a revelation that the Biden administration never pressed the Israeli government for a ceasefire, in which case, what was / is the strategy of the U.S. government besides genocide?)
Further, I think that one must always keep in mind that USonions are terrible negotiators. It’s all table-pounding, pouting, and smart-mouthing.
Call me in six months, once the ytterbium starts flowing from Odessa to Washington, DC.
Meanwhile, Radu Hossu. I had to click through to his TwiXt profile, because I didn’t recognize the name. Total Zelensky fanboi. Now it may be that Zelensky will leak details to his totalest fanboi, but I tend to doubt it.
And the following, from Hossu’s message, is daft, even by U.S. standards:
Officially, if this agreement will be implemented, which I expect it will, it turns Ukraine into a strategic partner of the US. I can’t help but think in these moments as I read this extraordinary news of that meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump in St. Peter’s Basilica.
Pope Francis, wherever you are, thank you.
Yep, the late Popester was a big advocate of environmental degradation and of taking advantage of smaller nations in a weak position.
Why Russia would consider the US a reliable entity with which to make agreements is beyond me. Neocons or Project Twenty Fivers, what’s the difference? Trump basically has already confirmed (shh) that the US is a cobelligerant against Russia in Ukraine; and is the agreement a ‘treaty’ that requires POTUS to need the Senate to Advise and Consent, in our new one party dictatorship? Now Trump is joined to the hip with Zelensky with a rare earth bond. Pauses or no pauses, my bet is that Russia will grind on and both China and Russia will keep building ships, missiles, and armies.
The deal is not about mineral resources. It is about freezing the conflict, being able to restart it any time (if Russia helps Iran or China) and kicking Europeans out of Ukrainian theatre (this reduces probability of conflict between Russia and NATO which would result in US engagement). Putin is not a crazy man and he will not attack US interests in Ukraine and risk conflict with the US. It is very likely that Moscow will rather soon quietly adhere to ceasefire. From Trump’s point of view it is a good deal, it cost him nothing (lots of UKR aid was on loans anyway and they will be repaid from the fund) and UKR will have to pay for arms shipments from now on. It remains to be seen if EU will be happy to accept US managed UKR as member state. UKR will not have any means to repay loans provided by Europeans. UK is losing lots of leverage. Putin looks like a loser. He wasted lives of 100k Russians and he achieved just a fraction of what he wanted.
“Putin is not a crazy man and he will not attack US interests in Ukraine and risk conflict with the US”
There is nothing to attack. The deal refers to undeveloped resources. One needs energy huge capital intensive investment, and workforce, and energy. Ukraine has none and US private investors will not rush in.
Also, if there even if there is anything developed, it will be in western Ukraine, as far away from the frontline as possible. I bet Russians would love to see US AD systems defending empty fields instead of military objectives…
As suspected: the US will continue to supply more weapons to Ukraine.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/01/trump-administration-readies-first-sale-of-military-equipment-to-ukraine
According to the Russian media, referencing the White House (as in the Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller), the purpose of the Subsurface Deal is for Ukraine to exchange their natural resources (or profits from the sale of the same) for US weapons. Even the title in your link says “sale” of military equipment.
Right, and how long do we think it will take to get even 50 mil. paid back, given the time frames discussed above? That on top of the odious debts?
A cash sale or another subsidy to the US MICIMATT?
A couple years ago everyone’s focus was the “grain deal” and how absolutely important it was for Russia to let Ukrainian grain ships out so the world wouldn’t starve. If you compare the “minerals” map provided today with any of several maps of Ukraine’s best agricultural land, you will note how much of it is in that same minerals belt. If Trump’s minerals deal ever rises above vaporware, and given how mining is done these days, the famous Ukrainian wheat belt will become another strip-mined wasteland.
Carl Jung liked to say that your goal in life must be to make the unconscious conscious. He basically said, if you don’t, it will direct your life, and you will call it fate.
I think Trump is sincere when he says he wants peace and he wants the killing to stop. But, as a severly damaged human being, in the back of his mind he needs to make a deal, too.
Trump wants peace in Ukraine but he can’t stop thinking about a mineral deal to make money. Putin doesn’t want a deal, rather, he wants the more abstack regional peace and security arrangements.
Trump wants peace in Gaza, yet, at the same time, he imagines a cash deal for beach front property.
Trump can’t solve anything from global warming to threats against free speech because he is unaware that he is damaged goods. Instead, he is likely to drag us all to hell.
I’m going to take the position that it’s all a staged managed war with Russia. All the main parties involved doing their best not to further upset fragile financial markets…until they are positioned to do so.
What if the alleged peace negotiations with Russia were viewed outright as terms of war negotiations?
Maybe enough spitballs for the day…
This creates a fund to do something. Who is supposed to put money in? Trump didn’t do it to shovel more cash into Ukraine. Ukraine doesn’t have any cash. There is no interest in allocating capital into capital intensive commodity plays.
The economics of Ukraine is for Western public funds to flow in. Every cent that flows in is spent somewhere or stolen. In Trumps reptilian brain, putting more money into Ukraine is not likely to ever crossed his mind.
3 card monte is the most likely business model. Who is the mark?