Your humble blogger is normally not keen about making a video interview on new developments the anchor of a post. However, below, you will see Judge Napolitano present a deeply disturbing fresh clip from a Trump press briefing to his guest, Colonel Douglas Macgregor. Many of you may recall that Macgregor was a military adviser to Trump during his first term. This segment confirms what yours truly had warned about, yet quite a few members of the commentariat seem unwilling to accept: that the Ukraine minerals deal, if consummated, will commit the US to involvement in and therefore support of Ukraine.
Put it another way, there’s no value to this arrangement, and high embarrassment to Trump, if peace negotiations fail (perhaps more accurately, fail even to get started). Russia will continue to eat up Ukraine and may eventually occupies Western Ukraine. Even if the expressed intent is simply to assure a Russia friendly regime in whatever territory Russia deems to be rump Ukraine, Trump will look like a fool and/or powerless.
The other reason for hoisting this Judge Napolitano talk is that based on a Twitter search, I was unable to find the troublesome Trump remarks. So the second reason for promoting this segment is to help get it in circulation.
Because yours truly is a very slow and inaccurate typist, forgive me for not transcribing more of the important parts of this show. If you have time to listen, start at 1:00, with Boris Johnson praising the prospect of a US-Ukraine minerals agreement because it “commits the US to a free, sovereign and secure Ukraine.” But even more dispositive are the comments from Trump himself. I’m excerpting a bit more since both Napolitano and Macgregor, heretofore keen Trump supporters, read the last remarks the same way I do.
Starting at 3:30:
Napolitano: Colonel, here is what the President said, just a few minutes ago. Chris, and and, it’s even worse than BoJo because President Trump is talking about US personnel, he doesn’t say military, US personnel on the ground, and nobody will mess with us…..
[at 3:54] Trump: They spent $350 billion dollars and Europe spent $100 billion. Now does anybody really think that’s fair? But then we find out a little while ago, not so long ago, a few months ago I found out that the money they spent, they get back [note Macron disputed this claim in person in a White House press conference early in the week, that only a portion of the EU funds were loans]. But the money we spent, we don’t get back. I said, “Well, we’re gonna get it back.” And we’ll be able to make a deal. And again, President Zelensky’s coming to sign the deal, and it’s a great thing. It’s a great deal for Ukraine too because get us over there, we’re going to be working over there, we’ll be on the land, and that way, it’s sort of automatic security, because nobody is going to be messing around with our people while when we’re there. And so we’ll be there in that way. But Europe will be watching it very closely. I know that UK has said and France has said that they want to put, they volunteered to put so-called peacekeepers on the ground. And I think that’s a good thing.
Napolitano: You know, we both respect him and applaud his willingness to talk with the Russians. But statements like that betray either gross ignorance or very very bad intel. Your thoughts, Colonel..
Macgregor: No, I think that’s a polite way to put it. To be frank, President Trump needs to get out of this notion of putting anybody in Ukraine who’s not Ukrainian. And stay away from it. I heard this and I was genuinely disappointed, because there’s been a gross misinterpretation.
We’ve had somewhere between 1.2 and 1.5 million Ukrainian dead in this war, along with 100,000 Russian troops….[at 6:00] This is a catastrophe. And President Trump should recognize that talking about deals regarding rare earth minerals to somehow pay us back for a war we did everything in our power to cultivate and launch, for a war that we subsidized, for a war that persisted far longer than it should have because of our influence, is a disaster. I think he should be much more mindful of the human losses, recognize this country is now wrecked, recognize that Russia has also paid a price for its victory, and back away from this. Stop talking about deals that are going to compensate us for something good. We didn’t do anything good. We did the opposite…
[At 7:07] At this stage, I think it’s both in bad taste as well as ill advised to talk about this sort of thing in public….
[AT 7:26] Napolitano: Why is he still arming Ukraine while the man next to him, Secretary of State Rubio, he must have been wincing, the camera was off him so we couldn’t see the look in his face, is supposed to be negotiating with his opposite number, Foreign Minister Lavrov? Why are we still arming the Ukrainians>
Macgregor: Well, ostensively because we’re going to receive some sort of payment…[At 7:58] Again, it makes no sense. All of the aid should stop immediately, not humanitarian aid, but certainly any form of military aid, should stop immediately. Why should the Russians take us seriously for a second if we sustain it?
Now it is possible that Trump will be saved from himself and Ukraine will not approve the deal (remember it takes Rada approval and not just Zelensky’s signature) and Trump will go back to Plan A, of instead pursing a deal with Russia and using whatever comes out of that to cover his Ukraine exit. But right now, Trump looks keen on getting a big-sounding deal done, even if it mires him and the US in Ukraine.
just quickly and as merely additional angles on minerals:
-Martyanov in his comments yesterday wrote on minerals issue: not real for now, but we will see.
-Sleboda reminded of the rather limited value of the minerals (excavation is the big problem) + we know RU has most of the relevant territory
-Sleboda pointed out that initial deal drafts had suggested Ukraine hand over 50% of all profits created by any trade deals to US which Z of course rejected
The deal is broader than minerals. It includes earnings on government-owned facilities, and ports are mentioned. Meaning Odessa. Not hard to think Ukraine threw that in to give the US an incentive to make sure they keep that and the Black Sea coast.
And with all due respect, these military guys miss the point. It does not matter how hard it might be to extract the minerals. It has been noised about all over they US that they are worth trillions. Therefore Trump will be able to sell Congress on more Ukraine funding as a loan against these assets.
In addition. the US and Collective West have NOT conceded Russian ownership of the parts of Ukraine they now occupy. They still regard it as Ukraine land and therefore part of this deal. So expect the US to demand Russia compensate the US for the expropriation of these rights.
Black Sea is an interesting idea as trap in terms of dual-use policy: Turning settlement on economic deal later into NATO military asset. Which has been one cornerstone of RAND-ish think for decades. And why this probably is a non-starter for RU. Unless they got total control. But how do you control container shipping? The first day after a deal with RU MI-6 would start pouring in weapons again.
p.s. So far I do not entirely understand Sleboda´s enthusiasm over this alleged “sea change”. Pentagon had seen it coming for at least 2 years (e.g. Texeira leaks, regardless of their questionable authenticity on certain details.)
We´ll find out…
I completely agree. I cannot help but think that this is also an attempt to secure the interests of Blackrock who has made huge investments in Ukraine. It is also an attempt to supersede any agreements Europe has made with Ukraine on developing its wealth. My personal opinion is that this is an elaborate ploy to develop leverage in future negotiations with Russia regarding the future of post war Ukraine.
There is no trusting Trump in this matter. Russia will use the strength of its military to settle the issue.
My sense is that Trump and his people are all over the place, moving simultaneously in every direction imaginable and then some in matters Ukrainian. One the one hand, they are talking about deals that basically take over Ukraine (in the manner of unequal treaties imposed on China etc. in 19th century), there are talks of weapons potentially continuing to flow (but they did stop the flow, more or less–I think–for a while), then we have had the Suez-esque vote in UNSC where US joined Russia and China on a resolution against Ukr and European states. Is there a coherent design behind all these? I’m inclind to think not: I suspect that it’s more the case of Trump and his people churning up the mud to see what happens. They probably don’t have a clear design or even expectation of what exactly will happen. They are inclined to find what they consider to be “advantageous” (whatever that could mean) based on what pops up, but not something specific from get go.
If so, trying to divine the “intent” of the Trump administration seems dangerous. They can and will do pretty much anything depending on how things flow. They are, at most, hedging against all possibilities (well, not exactly–but the rationale is the same–they will have a finger in everything so that, if things turn in one direction or the other, they’ll adjust accordingly.) So they will have made some preparations to turn profit on Ukraine if elements of the current regime somehow survive. They will have cut deals with Russia in case they wind up holding all cards. But they are not committed to any side. It is, in a sense, sensible and “realistic,” but it also makes US untrustworthy and unreliable, even more than before, in a sense. Biden and co. were, at least, firmly committed to the current Ukrainian regime winning, no matter how much they had to torture reality. So they were very reliable from the European side…and totally unreliable if you were on the other side. Now, the Trump administration is not very reliable from either side.
If one were to believe, as I suspect, that the Trump administration does not care for trust from the Europeans and is willing to accept abandoning them altogether, this seems like not unreasonable thing. You won’t get much from the Russian side either–they don’t trust you much to begin with and acting unpredictably doesn’t win much confidence either. But it does at least get you into a position to start talking which you couldn’t earlier–so it’s a sort of win, although much depends on how things play out.
I think one problem is that too many of us are trying to pin down Trump in one box or another–that he’s trying to end the war, stop the war, trying to make deal with Russia, or keep holding on to Project Ukraine, or whatever. I don’t think he has a clear goal–he’s throwing stuff everywhere to see what sticks and hasn’t really made up his mind–or even plans to for the time being at least. But this means that whatever happens will likely be dictated by reality. So everyone is scrambling to twist reality in their favor–i.e. having 20-30 thousand EU troops as “bait,” for instance” (even more than the Ukrainian “minerals” deal) in the hope that Ukraine becomes such a political liability that Trump is forced to join in. But it is also evident that Trump is not letting himself drawn in to make any firm commitment either–the mineral deal, per the other thread, allows for a lot of room for US to exploit its provisions for maximum advantage–but the terms are so vague that no one can really make much of them, for now. Trump is not ruling anything out, but making vague noises as if he might go with one of these schemes if the situation is right–and no one really knows if he won’t (or will) for sure. In other words, Trump is really playing “strategic ambiguity” hard, and, imho, much better than what people like Macron were trying to do earlier.
But as noted above, this carries with it a big price–you may not be cut out of any possibility in the future, but you won’t be able to get a big cut because no one trusts you either. I suspect that Trump thinks, and he may be right, that since US is such a big player, we’ll get a decent sized cut regardless so we can play this game–and we don’t care that much for foreign things anyways.
Great comment and I think most will agree that Trump has no personal ideology on Ukraine and the oft-used statement that “Trump just repeats what the last person told him if it sounds plausible” is in play here. Other than with respect to absolute statements by Trump such as “Ukraine will not be in NATO,” I think it is equally useful to look at statements by Musk, Vance, Don Jr and others with consistent contact with Trump (I am not sure how often he speaks to Don Jr.) for tea leaves on where this will eventually land. I suspect Tulsi will act as a weather vane and do what best positions her for 2028.
I am not sure how many saw it, but Don Jr. had a comment yesterday stating it made no sense to side with Russia instead of Ukraine.
I just read that some are challenging the authenticity of the Don Jr. comments i referenced (even if fake, they would be reasonably consistent with other comments he has made).
Tax cuts for the rich. That’s the one thing for certain to be delivered.
It feels like showbiz, it’s an open-ended creative process to come up with whatever plot and story becomes the next episode. Whatever keeps the suspense going and the audience riveted, invested. At this point killing off any character is game, any turn possible.
I’m inclined to think you are right. I see this as mostly bluster, designed to help put up a smokescreen for the inevitable defeat, and make it look less of a disaster, because of handwaving about potential economic benefits somehow, somewhere. Note that Trump doesn’t explicitly say that US troops will be deployed, which implies the opposite. His argument seems to be that the Russians would not dare attack US contractors working on the ground on Ukraine, although he still seems to think this would be in the context of a European peacekeeping deployment, which of course the Russians have definitively rejected. It strikes me as typical Trump: confuse people, divert attention, make headlines, avoid specifics …
“Strategic ambiguity”….. love it! Pretty analogous to one of my faves – “If you can’t blind them with brilliance, then baffle ‘em with bullshit. “ Both of which dovetail nicely with “move fast and break things”. All of which suggests to me that ‘they’ are making it up as they go. Sheesh. Wotta way to run an empire – unless the goal is into the ground. Like a mafiosi “bust out”.
My understanding is that Biden made a final arms gift/loan of materials–500 million–on the way out the door and this may be the “still be armed.”
https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/09/politics/us-ukraine-aid-biden/index.html
Some have suggested that this plus European help could keep the Ukraine army going for as long as six months but of course it’s the lack of trained soldiers that is now their real problem.
Meanwhile negotiations on restoring relations continue today in Turkey.
Honestly those of us who comment on this are not trying to be disputatious and are merely trying to understand what’s going on. I agree that Alastair Crooke in particular is way too glib in his assumption that Trump is some kind of grand strategist and it’s more likely that he is what he always was–amateur president. There has been a lot of that going around in our 21st c.
Trump does have a more professional staff now which creates the illusion of a plan.
Meanwhile I see no harm in hoping for the best while not being surprised by the worst.
$500 million is couch lint. The figure I heard was that the Pentagon had $3.8 billion authorized but not yet distributed at the end of Biden’s term, presumably weapons supplies. Again, couch lint.
PS (since the last comment seems to have disappeared into moderation box)
One reason I’m inclined to give Trump a “benefit of the doubt” (I don’t think it’s quite that, personally) is that whatever he is doing will be necessarily biased towards reality. He will play to the reality as it evolves, but he won’t do anything to actively shape it. So others are free to try to shape the reality to their advantage, and the only thing Trump will do is to negotiate that he’ll get the maximum advantage out of it IF things turn out in that direction without making any commitment to that reality being realized. So Trump won’t rule out taking a piece out of whatever scheme Macron and Stamer are up to, or what Zelenski is up to, but it will be 100% up to them to bring about that reality. In this sense, then, there’s no point in reading into Turmp talking agreeably with Macron or the “mineral deal” or whatever. Everything is contingent on how things turn out and Trump is merely trying to make sure that he has foot in every door, IMHO.
Huh?
Trump grounded in reality?
Have a look at his tariffs. First, they will increase inflation when he says he wants to reduce it.
Second, despite his claims otherwise, they will not generate enough receipts to replace income taxes.
Third, they will destroy rather than create jobs. That was demonstrated on a small scale in Trump 1.0. If he was reality-based, why did he not learn that lesson?
Fourth, they will not bring back manufacturing. Perhaps as a subsidiary part of a 10-20 year industrial policy, they could, selectively applied. But by themselves, no way.
I could give many other examples but that alone should make the point.
Reality, missing.
US even under Trump could no more protect its interest in minerals by Kiev than the USN and RN could keep Dutch interests in Java in early 1942.
To do so would require more U.S. Air power in the region than bases, infrastructure or U.S. could deploy
Same problem Kiev had and RF saw since the 2023 offensive.
EU is likely down to procuring munitions to send, US has a lot more to send from stock earmarked for other use.
Dneiper is a 1000 klicks too far! Maybe 2000.
Logistics; supplies, equipment, fuel, vehicles, transport, store rooms, distance, lift…. lines of communication.
No career fighting industrial age war in the enemy’s front yard
There is also the time interval it would take to build the mining infrastructure in Ukraine.
The USA and Ukraine may not be very competent in building about anything now in a war damaged Ukraine.
It could be years of spending even more before there would be a positive cash flow.
However, Russia may be competent in this regard.
But not a good look for Trump to pay Russia to build what he might call “Our Beautiful Mines” that come on line toward the end of his administration and bleed ever more money until then.
I wonder, if there were “big, beautiful profits” why have there been no investments?
IIRC rare earth refining is environmentally unfriendly.
I suppose what I”m getting at is that Trump operates on a different approach to “reality.”
The Neocon approach to reality is predicated on: we want X and we will bend reality to suit X at whatever cost. That X, furthermore, is “planned for” in detail in advance. Once things start not going as planned, they’ll double down so that things adhere to their “plans.”
WRT Trump, well, it’s a lot harder to tell. Trump talks fantastical schemes. How committed he really is to any of them is not clear–but everything we’ve seen suggests that he is pretty malleable. He might talk X, but if there are difficulties encountered trying to get to X, he’ll adjust. He might still engage in a lot of BS along the way, but it’s all talk. He doesn’t really believe any of it, so he’s not really committed to making every inch of that come true. So, yes, in this sense, Trump is more constrained by “reality” than the neocons are, precisely because he has no concrete plans and he’ll make things up as he goes along, depending on what he sees along the way. I don’t think we’ll ever see him trying to force the storm to obey his well (except as an act.)
What I would like to know concerning Trump and Ukraine is: The Rand Institute made a plan to weaken Russia as a nation by moving NATO closer to Russia’s borders, then over-throw Ukraines democratically elected government, train Ukrainian soldiers (including the fascist Azov Brigades), cause millions of citizens to flee Ukraine, watch 600,000 Ukrainian soldiers die and now want Ukraine to pony up the money to pay for the cost of the war by selling their Lithium deposits to the country that started the war. WOW, WOW, WOW. These Capitalists are some really really genetically hard-wired pshyco/feral dogs, sorry I mean they’re deeply interested in Democracy and Freedom for all, as long as you have some Lithium in your back yard.
The U.S. is no longer a country, it is a Corporate Circus pretending to be a government. So come one, come all and for a mere 5 million $ you can become a U.S.(X) Circus Citizen, and take your family to Washington D.C. to see Lena, Lena the laughing Hyena.
Green Greenwald interviewing Steve Bannon on the minerals deal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1OIK9PVxNk
Walk the F away
Trump wants/needs a big foreign affairs win by the SOTU March 4. Gaza doesn’t cut it because – genocide and no money for non MIC US corporations yet. Whatever the SOTU speech says about Ukraine will be presented as a that big win. Trump is desperate to show something.
What’s left out of account is international law. There is no legal basis for the kind of deal that Trump wants.
Odious resource sales are like odious debts. If they are not in the interest of the nation, but of corrupt leaders doing insider deals, or dictated by force and urgency by foreign governments, such deals are as odious and hence subject to annulment as odious debts are.
I think it is important to view the minerals deal within the context of the larger scope of all the bloviations, contradictory and outrageous statements of Trump et al. An incomplete but revealing list is 1. Statements regarding Greenland, Canada, Panama Canal etc. clearly designed to secure US dominance of important trade routes. 2. The rapprochement with Russia and denigration of Europe which signal a recognition that the west has lost the war. File this under the heading ‘Making lemonade out of lemons’. 3. The executive order reversing the oil agreements the Biden administration made with Venezuela. 4. Secretary Rubio’s statements recognizing the end of the unipolar world and the existence of a multi polar one. 5. The removal of language acknowledging the One China policy in the State Department website. 6. The deliberate trade war Trump is waging. 7. The support for a renewal of Israeli genocide in the Middle East and the establishment of Greater Israel. This all points to a strategy whereas the Trump Administration is attempting to navigate (albeit in a Tony Sopranoesque way) the Multipolar world we now live in. Instead of adopting the cooperative win win model of the BRICS nations, Trump is attempting to secure a distinct US sphere of influence. Within this sphere, the US will attempt to establish an absolute tyranny while also attempting to subvert Chinese influence in Asia to the best of its ability. Trumps tactic is to bluster and bully. If an opponent is strong and pushes back, he will back down and reach an agreement. If an opponent shows weakness Trump will crush them. Trump ALWAYS punches down.
I think the war in Ukraine has been good for some industries, and then thought the Ukrainian government was going to experiment with digital ids- assume there are members of the Trump entourage who may have an interest in seeing things continue. Testing out different capabilities with drones and starlink might be a for instance, one of several projects. AI for targeting in Gaza; maybe some autonomous drones in Ukraine. Who knows?
If it does not make sense then maybe we are missing the payoff. Is that the who whom question?
I see a lot of this Trump as dove narrative, and giving him the benefit of the doubt, and I’m more and more reminded of Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, given out of hope and for not being W.
This is even weirder because we’ve seen Trump as pres before, and he disproved it then. I get that it’s mostly talk, but during his last term, he did leave troops in Syria and have Qasem Soleimani assassinated.
Trump is a mob boss. He is seeing who caves first, then makes his move.
You really shouldn’t judge these things on the basis of conventional diplomacy.
If Zelenski had any sense he should be flying to Moscow to do a deal.
It is said that the Ukrainian deal is just a small part of a bigger deal with Russia to set a new security paradigm. I think a main goal of the Trump administration is to get Russia to pull away from China. And I don’t think that’s going to happen.
Put another way, Trump’s trying to figure out what deal he can make with Russia to break it away from China, and if he can’t do that then what can he do to save face.
Alex Krainer has some interesting theories about this mineral deal, and how part of it is about sticking it to the UK and the bank of London. He reminds us about the 100 Year deal that the UK made with the Ukraine and speculates that Ukraine has already promised those mineral rights to the UK. He also thinks it’s pretty rich that the US used Ukraine as a proxy to harm Russia and now Trump may be using Ukraine as a proxy to harm the UK and Bank of London. He recently talked about it on dialogue works and today on Capitol Cosm
I’m always disgusted when Trump says that the US needs to be paid for all the arms that it sent Ukraine. Ukraine has already paid for those arms with blood and loss of territory. No one should ever trust the United States. Okay, sorry to ramble, I get a bit lonely sometimes.