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 loot develop.
This is why it was dumb and premature for everyone to get all frantic about the Trump/Zelensky verbal spat last week. What was the underlying policy result? US and Ukraine agree to a bilateral pact that codifies long-term US financing and a de facto 'security guarantee,' US… https://t.co/GEAD92I6rF
— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) February 26, 2025
More pointedly:
🚨🇺🇸🇺🇦UKRAINE WAR TO CONTINUE IN RETURN FOR MINERALS
We went from ‘peace within 24 hours’ to ‘truce in a few weeks’ and now they are allowed to keep fighting for minerals.
So much for “no war wars”
Trump lied.
pic.twitter.com/hY0CCO1qET— ADAM (@AdameMedia) February 26, 2025
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.
As an aside, it’s odd to see the Financial Times dignify the notion that Ukraine has any meaningful rare earths deposits. An amusing debunking:
VIDEO COLUMN: Fantasy minerals.
Many people — not least of all, US President Donald Trump — seem convinced Ukraine has a lot of rare earths minerals. It’s utter nonsense. #Ukraine #UkraineWar @Opinion pic.twitter.com/LC3KVvV4oV
— Javier Blas (@JavierBlas) February 25, 2025
Regardless, it’s worth noting that 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
As the pink paper explains, the agreement is still not in final form and would need to be ratified by Ukraine’s Rada. The Financial Times also ventures that it similarly should be approved by a 2/3 vote of the Senate, but that does not seem to be in the cards. From the Financial Times:
Although the text lacks explicit security guarantees, the officials argued they had negotiated far more favourable terms and depicted the deal as a way of broadening the relationship with the US to shore up Ukraine’s prospects after three years of war.
“The minerals agreement is only part of the picture. We have heard multiple times from the US administration that it’s part of a bigger picture,” Olha Stefanishyna, Ukraine’s deputy prime minister and justice minister who has led the negotiations, told the Financial Times on Tuesday….
The final version of the agreement, dated February 25 and seen by the FT, would establish a fund into which Ukraine would contribute 50 per cent of proceeds from the “future monetisation” of state-owned mineral resources, including oil and gas, and associated logistics. The fund would also be able to invest in projects in Ukraine.
Ukraine has large underground deposits of critical minerals, including lithium, graphite, cobalt, titanium and rare earths such as scandium, that are essential for an array of industries from defence to electric vehicles.
The agreement excludes mineral resources that already contribute to Ukrainian government coffers, meaning it would not cover the existing activities of Naftogaz or Ukrnafta, Ukraine’s largest gas and oil producers.
However, it omits any reference to US security guarantees, which Kyiv had originally insisted on in return for agreeing to the deal.
It also leaves crucial questions such as the size of the US stake in the fund and the terms of “joint ownership” deals to be thrashed out in follow-up agreements.
Yours truly is old fashioned. An agreement with key terms still unsettled and to be hashed out later isn’t “final” in any normal sense. This seems awfully Japanese: have a vague agreement and keep arguing about what it means. But the Japanese have extremely strong cultural norms and so not as many things need to be spelled out as in a Western contract. But the effect of a Japanese-style deal and its continued wrangling is the more powerful partner has the upper hand.
This tweet, if you click through, purports to have the full text of the pact. It’s mighty hand-wavey and in my reading, does call for an awful lot to be resolved in yet-to-be-hammered agreements that one would, in the normal course of events, to be part of the main deal.
The full text of the "Minerals Deal" between Ukraine and the United States:
1. The Governments of Ukraine and the United States of America, with the aim of achieving lasting peace in Ukraine, intend to establish a Reconstruction Investment Fund (Fund), partnering in the Fund…
— Global Thinker (@talkrealopinion) February 26, 2025
You can start at the top and see how much this is NOT like any sort of serious financial arrangement:
The Governments of Ukraine and the United States of America, with the aim of achieving lasting peace in Ukraine, intend to establish a Reconstruction Investment Fund (Fund), partnering in the Fund through joint ownership, to be further defined in the Fund Agreement. Joint ownership will take into consideration the actual contributions of the Participants as defined in Sections 3 and 4.
But note this section:
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.
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.
But Moon of Alabama contends it won’t get done:
I find it difficult to imagine that any Ukrainian parliament or its fascists ‘nationalists’ will agree to it:
In their eagerness to align with Western powers, Ukrainian officials are effectively endorsing policies that undermine the nation’s autonomy. Rather than pursuing an independent economic strategy, Ukraine continues to adopt arrangements that leave it vulnerable to external western manipulation.
…
This deal highlights the dangers of Ukraine’s continued reliance on Western aid. True national strength and independence cannot be achieved through mechanisms that strip away a country’s natural wealth and leave it perpetually indebted to external powers.It is also doubtful that the agreement will withstand legal challenges. There are serious rumors that Zelenski had already sold Ukraine’s minerals to Britain.
A fresh Wall Street Journal story (posted at 10:30 PM EST) says that Zelensky has not yet agreed to go to Washington on Friday, as some outlets had reported, because key details need to be settled. Zelensky is still angling for a firmer commitment of military support. From the Journal in Zelensky Says There’s a U.S. Minerals Deal but Many Details Are Unresolved:
Zelensky said he had been invited to the U.S. to meet with President Trump this week, but he wasn’t sure if he would go, and details of the visit are still being worked out…
Still, he emphasized that the future of the mineral-rights deal would depend on his broader conversations with Trump and the president’s commitment to helping Ukraine. Trump had previously said Zelensky would be in Washington to sign the deal on Friday…
He said he would have several questions for Trump whenever they meet, including whether the U.S. would cut off aid to Ukraine, and if so, whether Ukraine would be able to buy weapons from the U.S. He would also ask whether sanctions on Russia would be lifted, he said.
“We will draw conclusions after my dialogue with President Trump,” Zelensky said.
Since any UK agreement about the minerals was not ratified by the Rada, the Trump deal would clearly have a reasonable basis of being seen as valid (ex the wee problem of the mineral and other property rights in most cases already being owned by private parties), while the bizarre Starmer 100 year partnership was more a press release than anything binding.
Putin also happened to have a meeting about rare earths minerals in Russia and the importance of Russia advancing their development. That was followed by an interview with Putin’s favorite reporter, Pavel Zarubin. Despite the effort to prevent misunderstanding, there still seems to be a lot of misreading of what Putin said. From the Kremlin site:
Pavel Zarubin: Mr President, we have just watched your meeting on rare-earth metals. Forgive me, but I believe that right now, all journalists around the world are interested in rare-earth metals, although in a slightly different context. The United States, and I will put it mildly, is strongly urging Zelensky to sign an agreement with the US regarding these resources as payment for the aid Ukraine received from the former administration, the Biden administration. In your opinion, what are the prospects of such an agreement?
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: That has nothing to do with us. I do not have an opinion, nor do I even want to think about it. Of course, these resources should be evaluated – whether they exist, what is their amount, how much are they worth, and so on. But, again, that is not our concern.
Our concern is what we have just discussed during the meeting. Rare and rare-earth metals are crucial resources for modern industries. So far, we have not done enough in this area, and we need to do more. The purpose of the meeting today was to direct administrative resources to developing this sector in the initial phase.
By the way, we would be open to cooperation with our American partners – and when I say “partners” I mean not only administrative and government agencies but also private companies – as long as they show interest in working together.
It is important to emphasise that Russia possesses significantly – I want to stress this – significantly larger resources of this kind than Ukraine. Russia is one of the uncontested leaders when it comes to rare and rare-earth metal reserves. We have deposits in the north, in Murmansk, and in the Caucasus, in Kabardino-Balkaria, as well as in the Far East, in the Irkutsk Region, in Yakutia and Tuva. Developing these resources requires substantial capital investment. We would be happy to cooperate with any foreign partners, including American companies.
The same is true for the new territories: we are open to foreign partnerships. Our historical territories that have become part of the Russian Federation again also hold certain reserves. We are ready to work there with international partners, including Americans.
First, Putin is throwing down a marker. The Trump-Ukraine deal is of no concern because Russia views it as not binding on the four oblasts that Russia has incorporated into Russia. However, this would seem to suggest that if the war were to continue and Russia wound up annexing more territory, Putin might have to arm-wrestle with Trump over mineral rights in the additional land acquired. However, if the peace dealmaking fails (which yours truly has long deemed very probable) and Russia continues to roll through Ukraine, the US does not have the military means or the political will to do much about it. However, they could use Russia’s purported seizure of never-perfected Ukraine mineral rights as a justification to seize the US portion of the frozen $300 billion of Russian assets.
Second, as far as Putin saying Russia is open to partnerships, even with Americans, this is nothing new. Putin has continued to maintain that he is willing to resume economic relations with parties that have spurned Russia. Recall how many times he has said Russia still has pipelines to Europe and Russia is still willing to provide gas.
Some have read far more into “We are ready to work there with international partners…we are open to foreign partnerships” than Putin said. Some have bizarrely taken this to mean that Russia would sell the mineral rights. I am admittedly not an expert on oil or mining development schemes, but at a conceptual level, the owner of mineral rights has many ways to skin the cat. By way of analogy, the producer of a successful Broadway show is in the business of maximizing the value of his subsidiary rights, not just of the performances of the original production, but things like ad sales in programs, rights to other live productions (on the road, foreign language productions), live performances of songs, rights to produce and sell the original recorded songs, screen rights, even rights to reproduce original artwork. Trees & Trunks confirmed our take:
Putin about ownership vs. operations. This is the only wise way to deal with non-renewable natural resources. Natural resources should belong to the state = you and me. Most of the revenues should go to the state = you and me because once it is dug up from the ground and sent away, they never come back. No foreign entity should be allowed to own anything, not even in any indirect or derivative way. If foreign companies are good at something, maybe they could be useful for operations.
I visited an oil&gas conference in Turkmenistan where the hosts made that very clear to all foreign companies present. You get some crumbles but you will never own the cookie. The fellow delegation participants also agreed on that when we talked about that approach.
This tweet suggests Putin might have a more specific trade in mind:
🇷🇺‼️Putin's secret plan: What is behind his offer to America?!⁉️
In his recent interview, which resonated around the world, Russian President Vladimir Putin offered something that at first seemed like a surprise, but is actually part of a much broader and long-term strategy.… pic.twitter.com/CcjgeeDImH
— Djole 🇷🇸 (@onlydjole) February 25, 2025
Regardless, if I were Russia, between Trump making it more clear than ever that he can’t be believed (him insisting as late as Monday that the US was again meeting with Russia in Riyadh on Tuesday, when no such event was happening) and that he’s taking action inconsistent with wanting a quick settlement of the war, I would dig in even harder on slow-walking any talks. Russia’s best course of action remains prostrating Ukraine. Trump is actually making it easier for them to stay the course.
I believe that you’re missing a key concession won by Zelensky:
From MoA:
So Metinvest, Ukrogaz, and any other existing private sector enterprises get a carve-out.
That leaves what for this hypothetical, fairy-tale fund to invest in?
Pig in a poke … Trump got rolled!
Yes, in the interest of getting the post done, I missed the obvious, that the deal does not allow for the expropriation of private, not yet developed mineral holdings. The maps of Ukraine mineral deposits make it easy to continue with that confusion. Those are not even remotely what is on the menu, only a subset of that.
I have wanted to write (and had I realized what you noted, I DEFINITELY would have included it) that everyone had been underestimating Zelensky now that his green T-shirt act has gotten tired and Ukraine is losing. He and his Banderite buddies are still standing. This deal with Trump, if it gets done, gives him another lease on life. And even better, by snookering Trump after he made such a show of humiliating Zelensky!
Zelensky is making good use of being a drug addict. They are the best at extracting money and favors from everyone around them and coming up for pretexts as to why they need more. And an actor who was willing to play piano with his penis is incapable of shame, so he could endure Trump’s poundings better than most.
Was there not just a massive privatization of state-owned industry? Are they looking to recreate state-owned mining or is that promise extremely empty?
Not to be argumentative but Michael Tracey was, before the election, pushing the idea that Trump was being deceptive on Ukraine and his current “aha” is somewhat premature. Being a contrarian is his bag.
And sorry I don’t have a link but I’ve read that it was Zelensky who originally proposed the minerals idea, Trump showed no interest, Zelensky semi promised them to the UK, now Trump has taken it up and will hash it out with Starmer who comes the day before Zelensky comes on Friday.
Ultimately it all comes down to whether Trump wants a thaw with Russia or not and given his constantly shifting statements perhaps we will just have to wait and see. IMHO.
Tracey also made some shit up about the US having to send troops to protect “their interests” when, in fact, there is very little to nothing. “I’m going to war for a hypothetical future interest in monetizing resources which are specifically limited to:
1) Not the Donbass – there goes 25% (charitably)
2) Not currently under the control of existing private sector companies like Metinvest – there goes probably 75%
Doesn’t sound like much of a war cry … more like a crooked land deal, selling land in Texas that has potentially recoverable oil and gas, but not the land owned by Exxon, Mobile, Jerry Jones private land, etc.
I know not about Tracey and what he has made up and defer to you on that. But I do know Trump has suggested Americans (troops or others who knows) might be needed to protect what he thinks he might get in Ukraine. Of course, Trump says a lot of things that often amount to nothing. Still, pretending your opening up shop near advancing Russian troops is provocative IMO and ozzes ulterior motives and lays the groundwork for protecting “American interests.”
Project much? You are the one going off half baked here.
Sorry, that was NOT Tracey fabricating. Trump in fact said it, it was quoted in several mainstream outlets but I didn’t bother running that down for this post.
I’m going to look for a source and a specific quote.
Too much blustering is going on here and 90% of what Trump says is garbage meant to move the Overton window. Or perhaps signs of senility as others suggest.
I agree with Timbers that this move is still provocative to Russia. However, when you dive into the details it is sort of like a 55-year-old man with no status provoking his wife by threatening to have an affair with an unobtainable celebrity like Taylor Swift.
How long until more intelligent members of Congress figure this out, let alone Putin?
Trump did not draft that deal. His team is moving this along, FFS.
His Treasury Secretary, Bessant. who is a hedgie and therefore has some familiarity with contracts, was the first to present it to Zelansky. I highly doubt he would have presented it to demand a signature if he had not at least read it. It seems likely that someone in Treasury prepared it.
Well yeah, Trump isn’t a lawyer, more like the sales department.
It usually pays to wait a while before coming to conclusions. I agree with the overall thrust of this piece that Trump is now more likely to continue the war than his most ardent supporters hoped. However, as details come out on the “four corners” of the document, it looks like Bessant got rolled:
Source
And:
Finally:
I don’t see any of that as consistent with what Tracey wrote: “about the US having to send troops to protect “their interests” ” when those future interests are now looking to be minimal at best, illusory at worst.
Trump also stated that Ukraine only gets “the right to fight on” which is ridiculous … they already have that right, so there is no consideration in this deal.
If this were a contract it would not stand in a court of law.
We have the actual agreement draft in the post. I suggest you look at it rather than rely on reports by third parties that have not seen it
The $500 billion was an ask. Zelensky forcefully rejected it.
There’s no way you can get anything done in a foreign country without local participation. And if you bothered reading the draft, the percentages are not specified, although there is a handwave about it kinda sorta reflecting economic contribution.
If you read the language (I admit to only a quick skim) it looks very skewed to the US side.
What Tracey wrote is PRECISELY what I read elsewhere, that Trump himself said that the us might need to send some soldiers to “protect their interests” in the event of what was then a “rare earth” deal. And I did not see that from Tracey. Why are you accusing him of fabricating?
And Trump is already slow-walking back his positions:
https://babel.ua/en/news/115779-the-us-will-not-provide-ukraine-with-too-many-security-guarantees-trump-called-it-europe-s-business
Zelensky did not present the plan to Trump. It was part of his Victory Plan, which well predated the Trump win, that Ukraine would pledge its minerals in return for security guarantees. Trump was not interested because his initial position was no security guarantees, reaffirmed by Hegseth at the Munich Security Conference.
As for the Starmer secret deal idea, that’s bollocks. Starmer can’t bind the UK to the open part of his deal, let alone any secret pinkie shake, without Parliamentary approval. Zelensky may be an actor, but he is no fool. He knows that deal was only PR but at this point he needs all the shows of support he can get.
It seems far more likely that the impetus was Russia not being at all keen to negotiate for peace and not giving an inch on its position. Even if Trump still believes Russia is weak and ought to want a deal, he can’t get past the body language that they won’t make concessions. And in the last week, the frog hopped out of his mouth that they would win if they kept at it.
So I think this is the result of Trump not liking that he has no leverage and scrambling to find some. And he is falling into the same pit, that his only threat is to keep up the fighting.
Those Broadway Producers are bold!
Or maybe there’s a bold tag problem.
It’s Springtime for Zelensky in the USA!
Another great analysis and “we told you so” moment, thank you Yves.
I have noticed that some commentators and experts whom I normally highly respect, have gone off on a bit of a wishful thinking, giving the DT2 regime many benefits of the doubt and even making excuses. It’s as it they forgot what happened during the DT1 era: the US withdrew from the INF treaty, ramped up sanctions on Russia, approved of aid to Ukraine, attacked Russia’s allies, and attacked Russia’s interests (and considered murdering Julian Assange) etc. (with “friends” like that, who needs…)
It’s almost as bad as the loyal opposition making excuses for the JB regime.l
The mass media produced a contrived and false (straw-man) argument that DT was buddies with Putin, or even Putin’s stooge. The other side claimed that DT was a man of peace and was deescalating the situation. None of this was remotely true. Very few facts got through during the media circus.
Side note: DT may be showing signs of cognitive decline, does he even remember his own BS?
Short-term memory loss is real after the age of 75. (BTDT)
Thank you for saying that about commentators making excuses for Trump and generally being too optimistic about him. I have been grousing about that almost daily to Lambert about quite a few prominent YouTubers.
I am disappointed and a bit frustrated as well. No one is perfect of course, but they can be politely reminded that their hope was misplaced, and the facts didn’t support such optimism. Will they be emotionally mature enough to see that perhaps subconscious sentiments clouded their rational judgement? It is not easy to self-reflect to root out possible subconscious bias, especially in the emotionally-charged atmosphere lately. I often have to keep my frustration/anger in check and not let it prevent thorough evaluation.
Among the starry-eyed youtubers I would count Larry Johnson, who recurrently apologizes to his readers as he persists in trying to discern the logic of Trump’s meanderings. My guess is that if Trump were to appear to be serious about committing US troops to defend fictitious mineral holdings the apologies would stop. Moon of Alabama is right (NC and MoA have been a great chorus lately) about the Vietnam analogy and that, coupled with mounting public worries about the continuation of core federal support programs, would definitely bring any 100 days honeymoon to an end.
Trump has clearly fallen prey to the sunk cost fallacy, and he has missed his best opportunity to abandon the failed Project Ukraine.
This has always been the case since the Stavka whispered into Putin’s ear.
Russia now has the most powerful army on the planet and Ukraine is next door.
Excellent post and thank you for the link to Mr. Krainer’s article. I heard him make this argument about the secret deal with PM Starmer on Dialogue Works. It is all very convoluted. If Zelensky lacks the authority to commit to the UK then he also lacks the authority to commit to the US. Can the Rada even ratify an act by a President who has no constitutional authority? I would think that Russia is in no hurry to enter an agreement to end the fighting as they are about to encircle the Ukrainian forces in the Kursk region creating a surrender or die cauldron, and Russia is supposedly about to break through most of the fortified areas that stand between it and the Dnieper River. Furthermore, a Russan condition for any settlement is denazification, which I take to include the elimination of the fascist nationalists from power and probably the installation of a Russian friendly president/government. Will the destruction of the Ukrainian army in Kursk and the Russians reaching the Dnieper precipitate the collapse of the current Ukrainian regime? Would that open the way for a de novo tripartite agreement among the US, Russia, and what is left of Ukraine for the exploitation of resources and infrastructure management, the proceeds from which would be divided among the three parties, with perhaps a common pledge on reconstruction?
Thanks but I suggest you re-read the post. I did state that the Rada had to approve the minerals deal, and also said I did not regard the “100 year agreement” Starmer signed as having any more validity than a press release. A PM can’t enter into treaty obligations. That among other reason is why Theresa May had so much trouble with Brexit. She had to get the exit deal ratified by Parliament.
I did not check to see that that link (from Moon of Alabama) that used Krainer as a source and would not have included it had I been aware it was from him. He has made quite a few statements about the financial crisis that are put-foot-in-mouth-and-chew level wrong, which makes me doubt him on other topics (if he can’t get pretty well known historical information right, how can he be trusted on anything?). Until I see someone else confirming this rumor, I would take it with a fistful of salt (and in general, I have found single-sourced information, unless supported by documents, to often be wrong, typically due to them not having the full picture or noise getting in the signal they received).
Thank you for your opinion on Krainer; my only exposure to him is very recent and only via Dialogue Works. Ultimately, what can be done with what remains of Ukraine? European leaders have no solutions, being with few exceptions headless chickens. Supposedly Russia does not want to conquer and then become responsible for Western Ukraine beyond effecting a regime change, the population of which is not only hostile to Russia but also burdened with internal ethnic conflict. I have seen proposals to carve it up among the old eastern bloc nations. Others, however, warn that this may set a precedent to open other old territorial claims, such as between Poland and Germany, a Pandora’s box. What a mess.
Having EU members annex parts of Ukraine is a no go for all sorts of reasons (I would have to go dig it up but IIRC not just international law but EU legal and practical issues). And this was Medvedev’s idea, another reason for the West not to like it.
The current best guess as to Russia’s least bad outcome is a rump Ukraine with an installed regime. If if winds up conquering all of Ukraine, it could use the end of WWII arrangements for Germany (restoration of some degree of autonomy after >10 years). I think they’d rather not go there but somehow get a friendly in charge of rump Ukraine. They do have a candidate for President: Viktor Medvedchuk, former Ukraing pol and friend of Putin.
Also, for what it’s worth, I checked Krainer’s article and he listed his source for the secret portion of the UK Treaty as AE News, a Czech publication, with a link. The AE News article lists their source as a leak from Ukranian intelligence sources. The article states “the content of the so-called secret amendment to the Security Treaty between Ukraine and the United Kingdom, which was signed in mid-January, was placed on Ukrainian social networks … According to this information, Kiev and London have signed a secret agreement in the form of a non-public amendment to the Security Treaty 2[2] concluded for a period of 100 years, according to which the UK will gain control of all Ukrainian ports, all nuclear power plants, all gas storage facilities, all gas storage systems, all the gas supply system, over all the titanium reserves and all gas extraction in Ukraine in exchange for unconditional British aid and military aid. Several Ukrainian sources reported on Thursday.” But as you point out, the ‘treaty’ is effectively a pr release and is meaningless whether disclosed or secret.
The nice people at the American Enterprise Institute have some creative ideas about more loans to Ukraine
https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/the-ukraine-reparation-loan-solution/
Since Ukraine will likely remain a failed state for some time, how plausible is it that the debt can be repaid?
One way or the other, it looks like Ukraine will have to sell off assets in a big way to finance the debt service.
Welllie, we did such a good job of bleeding Greece! Surely we can rinse and repeat with Ukraine.
Of course, there is the wee problem that a lot of businesses and homes were destroyed and a lot of the population has fled. But with neoliberals, where there is the will, there is a way!
For now I stand by my hunch that this represents maneuvering for the $300B is frozen RF assets. He can keep repeating that the war would not have happened if he was President and at least he got back the money Biden gave away.
Even if so, he still has to keep supporting Ukraine to get there. So it’s therefore still a commitment trap that prevents getting his much ballyhooed peace deal. Mind you, I thought that was never gonna happen because the Russians correctly and absolutely do not trust the US, and what it would take in the way of commitments by the US to overcome that would be seen by the US as insulting or otherwise too much.
Agree, he was never going to get his deal and probably knows that now. In his public statements, including today’s Q&A at his cabinet meeting, he describes the agreement as payment for past aid rather than collateral for future aid. If he cynically strikes this deal as pretext for eventual seizure of the frozen funds, knowing the deal will never pay off, I don’t see why he needs to send additional aid, particularly if he realizes that the deal is effectively worthless. Might be missing something.
On the “are the minerals even there” angle, I’d be interested in hearing more. I know very little about mining & geology, but my understanding was economical lithium & rare earth deposits are largely sedimentary deposits in dried out prehistoric seabeds (like Nevada). The titanium angle at least makes more sense.
As for MoonOfAlabama’s suggestion, I won’t be surprised if this all falls through, but if it does, I doubt the fascists / nazis will be why. I’m a fan of John Dolan aka the War Nerd’s theory of nazis: however evil they may be, what really makes them unique is how crude & self-destructively dumb they are. If anything, I could see them being the last holdouts working as slave drivers at some BlackRock-owned “artisanal” mine while Ukraine finally dissolves around them.
Coming full-circle, I think that’s part of why so many commentators keep giving Trump the benefit of the doubt. Outside of coming around to certain Marxist concepts or equivalent, it’s hard to reason about how collectively stupid society can be sometimes. I think especially among those with a conservative or liberal streak, their weltanschauung can’t fully handle that the trainwreck is happening, thus the theories that Trump 2.0 can’t actually be exactly what we’re seeing with our own eyes
“However, they could use Russia’s purported seizure of never-perfected Ukraine mineral rights as a justification to seize the US portion of the frozen $300 billion of Russian assets.”
This is the single most coherent explanation that I’ve read as to why the Trumpians are pushing this minerals deal (I’ve been scratching my head trying to understand why they were being so aggressive about getting it signed). Quite clever, tactically speaking; making the best of a bad situation and maximizing one’s options going forward.
Strategically speaking…..well, The Donald doesn’t do strategy. But his ad hoc approach has served him well for nearly 80 years, so I tip my hat reluctantly.
I continue to believe that this RU-UKR conflict won’t be over anytime soon.
It’s possible Trump is serious about trying to continue the war in exchange for minerals, but the problem with Trump is that he often appears to regurgitate whatever the last person he listened to told him, so maybe there is hope for a turnaround.
On that note, we know that Trump at least occasionally listens to Jeffrey Sachs given the talk he reposted a few weeks ago. Yesterday Sachs was on Napolitano’s show urging a peaceful settlement in Ukraine and Napolitano claimed that Trump was listening – check it at the 25:00 mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MxJf4EDeko
I’d like to think we’ll wind up with peace her sooner rather than later, but we’ll see. Ukraine giving over all its minerals to the US sure does seem like an admission that Ukraine just lost the war – lost to Uncle Sam. Which of course is what this was all about in the first place – the US grabbing other nation’s resources on the cheap.