Trump also said publicly today that Putin does not want to make concessions and that a peace deal will be tough sledding. Just wait. Tomorrow Trump will be singing a different tune. Good times.
So even though I’ve consumed everything from Rush Limbaugh to Noam Chomsky if I just gave this one guys Sachs a chance and read his content than ill then unlock the key to my consciousness and achieve enlightenment??? If only I read Sachs I would then drop the whole pro democracy anti dictatorship stance and finally see Putin as a good guy instead of a corrupt murderous tyrant who invaded his sovereign neighbor because they had a democratic election where the Ukrainian people chose a path where they could have more self determination, be part of the west with all the economic benefits that comes with that, and less of a stranglehold by Russia who has an economy smaller than that of Italy??? Can’t wait to be enlighten once I read this guy and find out how wrong I’ve been about the whole western democracy thing. Look man… I love you posts on basically anything except for whatever is going on with you and your stance on Putin. I don’t know why there is this loyalty here that feels so out of place with everything else you seemingly stand for. I’d love to know why and no offense but I’m not buying that it’s just because you also read this Sachs guys newsletter or whatever.
You mean this guy right? Well here he is fact checked. Shocking what Jeffrey spews were lies that are similar talking points used by Russia. https://thehill.com/opinion/interna...roubling-transformation-of-jeffrey-sachs/amp/
I understand what you're saying, and I don't disagree. Putin shows us that "words-only" security assurances mean little, depending on who is making them or is in power - as evidenced by Russia abandoning its promise to provide security assurances to Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear stockpiles. If joining NATO as a security guarantee is off the table (which is likely), then there must be other tangible incentives that drive behavior resulting in real security guarantees for Ukraine - though ultimately, it's up to Ukraine to decide if those incentives are sufficient. Historically, nations have been motivated to defend their interests when valuable, scarce resources are at stake. If these minerals are as critical as suggested, one might expect the U.S. to have a strong incentive to protect them. Of course - having a head of state who is not trustworthy (or frankly, who behavior is similar to Putin) makes any deal - whether based on words or incentives - much more difficult to secure.
What I am not yet understanding is what Ukraine gets out of the deal that makes it worth considering. Western journalism has focused too much on what's in it for the US, how Putin will react, and what it means for Ukrainian physical security (nothing, essentially). It seems like the carrot for Ukraine is that they need a lot of capital investment to build their mining industry and monetize these resources, which they can then use to power growth of the rest of the economy. What it sounds like is the US and Ukraine will make a sovereign fund to invest in Ukrainian infrastructure, and that half of Ukrainian revenues (not profits?) from mining would go to the fund. It sounds like a pretty robust plan, honestly, for rebuilding Ukraine. But, what I haven't found is what value the US actually brings to this arrangement. We get to own a percentage of this fund, but I see no reporting that we're contributing capital, or bringing expertise, certainly no security-- so what are we doing to earn our stake? The answer might be nothing, which I think would doom the deal in the long run as just a neo-colonialist exploitation that will breed resentment and war. It might be American capital but, if so, why has that not been publicly broached? And if it is just capital, which is fungible, why would the American deal be more attractive than getting capital from Europe (who can also offer security) or, for that matter, China? And, can Ukraine really get better access to capital this way than the capitalist way of being an attractive investment? And plenty of questions around expertise as well. Ukraine had national companies for oil and gas extraction already. Is a mining deal also going to include opening up their economy to the super-majors (like we did in Iraq)? They can bring expertise Ukraine likely lacks. But they likely also take more of the middle of the value chain, sending those profits back to NYSE, and leaving Ukraine's share of profits just at the wellhead. In short, if not for security, why is Ukraine entertaining this deal?
The US DID lose the war in Vietnam - we gave up and went home knowing that the NV would take over. You can try to spin it any way you want, but we failed at out objective in that war and there wasn't anything positive long term that came out of that experience.
The reason "this whole thing started" is because Russians cannot accept that they are no longer a world power like the USSR and as a result invaded their neighbor Ukraine. That is why this whole thing started - Russia invaded Ukraine.
He understands. He understands that he's supporting Putin and Russia, and pumping out lies in the service of Vladimir Putin, because that's what Russia's dictator wants him to do. Why trump is willing to sell out the United States and our allies will come out eventually. Sadly, immense and lasting damage will be caused by trump to our country and our friends of many decades standing in the meantime. Those who put the creature in office will live to regret it, in my opinion. As for Vietnam, of course we lost the war. Anyone saying we didn't is amazingly delusional.
My GUESS is that Ukraine is signing an initial deal to maintain U.S. support, buying time to determine how to stand on its own - perhaps by securing additional resources from Europe. This deal not only gives the U.S. a win (a marketing win is as significant or more than an actual one with this admin) but also provides both sides with extra time to work out a long-term agreement and offers Ukraine the flexibility to adjust its strategy. In short, Ukraine's immediate need is for the U.S. to remain steadfast. This signing provides the U.S. president with a political victory and more time to negotiate a final peace deal, while Ukraine explores other options for securing guarantees or eventually achieving a breakthrough that could bring reliable U.S. security support. p.s. Zelenskyy is not going this route, but with love letters, he might get more than a security assurance
Maybe so. But, the minerals deal doesn't sound like a small-scale or limited-timeframe arrangement one might expect of an "initial" deal. It sounds like a big commitment from Ukraine that will not be at all easy to unwind.
Wapo is positive for it. Macron seems to be angling for some scraps. We all know where that O&G is headed. That's enough to shut them up for now, but if it kills Russian gas exports in 10 yrs, who knows what Putin or his successor will scheme. Personally, it feels greasy negotiating with someone held at knifepoint. More Hood Robbin than Robin Hood, but I'll get over it if Russia doesn't get stronger from the final outcome. P.S. I'll write a reply to your responses. Just too busy to be sincere about it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/02/27/minerals-deal-ukraine-russia/ Trump just dealt Russia a devastating blow Marc A. Thiessen5-6 minutes 2/27/2025 The minerals deal negotiated between the United States and Ukraine is a devastating development for Russia. Indeed, it is in some ways more important than any peace deal President Donald Trump might negotiate to end the fighting. Once implemented, it will mean that Russia has effectively lost the war. Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted to conquer his neighbor. Instead, the United States has just gone into business with Ukraine — entering into, as the agreement puts it, “a durable partnership” with Kyiv to jointly develop Ukraine’s untapped minerals and other natural resources and pledging “a long-term financial commitment to the development of a stable and economically prosperous Ukraine.” With this deal, the United States is now invested — literally, not figuratively — in what the deal calls “a free, sovereign and secure Ukraine.” That means the United States now has a massive financial incentive to help safeguard Ukraine’s independence. If Ukraine survives, the United States will stand to gain hundreds of billions of dollars; if Ukraine falls, we get nothing. After all, does anyone think that if Putin conquers Ukraine, he is going to repay the United States for the weapons we gave Ukraine to fight his troops? Of course not. The deal creates “a Reconstruction Investment Fund” that will be jointly owned and managed by the two countries. Ukraine will contribute 50 percent of all revenue earned from the “future monetization” of all government-owned natural resource assets, including “minerals, hydrocarbons, oil, natural gas, and other extractable materials.” The fund will use this revenue to “invest in projects in Ukraine and attract investments to increase the development” of its natural resources, as well as “infrastructure, ports, and state-owned enterprises.” Those who say Ukraine failed to win security guarantees in exchange for the minerals deal are missing the point: The minerals deal is a security guarantee. Trump has made clear that he is not going to send American troops to Ukraine. But with this deal, he is going to send something better: American workers, bulldozers and earthmovers. “It’s a great deal for Ukraine, too, because they get us over there,” Trump explained during his Cabinet meeting Wednesday. “We’re going to be working over there. We’ll be on the land. And you know, that way it’s this sort of automatic security, because nobody’s going to be messing around with our people when we’re there.” With the minerals deal done, Trump must now negotiate a peace deal that secures his investment by making sure the war ends — and never resumes. Ukraine’s minerals only have value to America if they are extracted from Ukrainian soil, processed and sold. If Ukraine does not have security, that won’t happen. U.S. businesses won’t be able to mine for minerals under fire from Russian forces and will not make long-term investment in Ukraine if they fear the fighting will resume. And if they don’t invest, American taxpayers won’t get paid. Trump certainly knows that as soon as there is a peace agreement, China, Iran and North Korea will help Russia rearm — and that in time, Russia will reconstitute its forces and rebuild its defense-industrial base in preparation for a new offensive. To stop that from happening, the United States needs to help Ukraine establish deterrence. And that will require allowing Ukraine to purchase the American weapons it needs to discourage Russia from ever restarting the conflict. The minerals deal creates a mechanism to repay the United States for the weapons we have given Ukraine over the past three years, but not for Ukraine to buy weapons in the future to defend our joint investments. Jack Keane, a retired Army general, and I laid out a plan in these pages on transitioning Ukraine from an aid recipient to a defense consumer, and using frozen Russian assets and loans guaranteed by Ukraine’s natural resources to buy weapons. This will be critical if we want to ensure that the war never starts up again, and Ukraine’s resources can be developed for the benefit of both countries. This does not require a new agreement or action by Congress; the mechanisms for such sales exist under existing law. But this deal is a critical step forward. Russia wanted to diminish Ukraine economically, politically and militarily. With this deal, Trump has enhanced Ukraine economically and politically. Now, to secure our new investments, the United States must enhance Ukraine militarily as well.
Interesting article. Not sure I agree with it entirely. A few hundred billion over decades is a pittance in the grand scheme of things for the United States. On defense alone we spend $900 billion every single year.
War mongers: You can never trust Putins words. He is always lying. Also war mongers: If Putin said it, he means it.
