3 ms·

The minerals deal made no sense. 1. If you wanted minerals because of strategic concerns, you would not source them from a State which has been invaded by Russ

The minerals deal made no sense. 1. If you wanted minerals because of strategic concerns, you would not source them from a State which has been invaded by Russia. This is not a stable, reliable source. 2. The deal we saw details for was a jointly controlled fund for investment, where 50% of profit of State owned mining and related infrastructure would be deposited. There's no mention there of mineral supply to the US. I did not understand it, and I still see no sense in it. What was actually going on? We saw Donald try to bounce Z into signing : "you have one hour to sign this". That obviously shattered any trust that might have been there. I don't think we ever saw the text of that first deal. Then the second deal was just this jointly controlled investment fund, which looked like a face-saver. In any event, USA is now out of the game. A coup is in the process of occurring, and once the judges and courts are subverted, will be complete. All this with the deal and D and Z is basically water under the bridge; EU has to stand on its own two feet now, and that's the situation here and now, however we got here.

leptons 2y ago
>What was actually going on? I really hope that Zelensky doesn't arrive back home with a bad case of novichok or polonium.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  It's a miracle he's survived all these years.
  - pclmulqdq 2y ago
    I'm not convinced Russia actually wants him dead. They are doing fine with him there, and he has not done well at gathering support internationally.
    - casenmgreen 2y ago
      EU and USA have provided immense support for UA, about 250 billion USD in total IIRC. On the face of it, it's not obvious that he's doing a bad job.
      - pclmulqdq 2y ago
        This is a puppet government of the US that was installed in 2014 after they overthrew a Russian puppet government. Of course the previous US administration gave tons of support - Obama's people installed Zelensky, so Biden continuing the support makes sense. Biden's family has also made a lot of money in Ukraine under the current regime, so it was personal for him. As for Europe, this is existential for them and it's cheaper to spend Ukrainian lives on this than their own. What is missing is any other international support from parties who aren't directly interested in this conflict, like India pressuring China to stop supporting Russia.
        casenmgreen 2y ago
        This is nuts.
        pclmulqdq 2y ago
        Where is it wrong, though? Here are a few pointers: Ukraine was Victoria Nuland's project. Her CIA had a huge hand in the protests against Yanakovich (who was, in turn, an asset of Putin's GRU), and she personally had a hand in negotiating with Yanakovich on behalf of the protestors. You should read about the events in Ukraine in 2014. That overthrow led to the retaliatory capture of Crimea, where the US and EU apparently did not learn their lesson about how much of a madman Putin is. As for the Biden Ukraine connection, I'm sure Hunter Biden is just secretly very talented at managing oil companies, which is why he was put on the board of Burisma in 2014, after Nuland's little coup. I believe the "10% for the big guy" quote was in reference to this deal, too. As for this being an existential threat to Europe, I'm not even sure you need to be given the facts about having a madman like Putin edging closer to your borders, while also depending on him for energy. Finally, on supporting your puppet governments: it's basic game theory that you should do this. Otherwise all the other ones (see much of Latin America) get overthrown.
    - IAmGraydon 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - dang 2y ago
        You've been breaking the site guidelines badly in this thread, such as here, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43222575 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43222575, and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43221102 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43221102. There are other recent cases too (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43163494 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43163494), and it unfortunately goes back a long time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33227833 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33227833 (Oct 2022) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29522959 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29522959 (Dec 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28979071 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28979071 (Oct 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16017108 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16017108 (Dec 2017) I don't want to ban you, so if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules from now on, that would be good. Among other things, that means no more personal attacks regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are.
        IAmGraydon 2y ago
        Sorry dang. I'll dial it back.
        dang 2y ago
        Appreciated!
- etc-hosts 2y ago
  He might develop a bad case of Azov Battalion.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
There is one way in which it could make sense. If the US is able to extract economic benefits from Ukrainian territory, then it is likely to help Ukraine defend that territory in order to get those benefits. Now whether those benefits are lucrative enough to warrant the US' help, I think not, which is why the deal apparently included no guarantees. The $500 billion is completely bullshit - they're not worth that much.
- Swenrekcah 2y ago
  I would be extremely surprised if the other half of this profit fund was not eventually meant to go into Trump's pockets rather than to the United States itself.
lo_zamoyski 2y ago
The mineral deal has at least three purposes[0]: 1. It provides a way for Ukraine to become a client of US defense instead of a an aid recipient. That is, it allows Ukraine to pay for the weapons it receives. 2. It puts Americans on the ground in Ukraine in a non-military capacity. This introduces a new diplomatic dimension, as attacking or occupying land with significant American presence is not desirable. 3. It provides money for an investment fund for rebuilding Ukraine. Whether this is an effective strategy, I don't know. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/02/27/minerals-deal-ukraine-russia/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/02/27/minerals-...
- DonHopkins 2y ago
  You can no longer trust the Washington Post as a reliable source of opinions, like those that you're trying to shill as facts.
- casenmgreen 2y ago
  > 1. It provides a way for Ukraine to become a client of US defense instead of a an aid recipient. That is, it allows Ukraine to pay for the weapons it receives. The text I saw was for the formation of a jointly (US/UA) owned entity which would decide how to reinvest 50% of the profits from UA State owned minerals/related infrastructure. Unless "reinvest" means "give to US", I don't see this point happening. > 2. It puts Americans on the ground in Ukraine in a non-military capacity. This introduces a new diplomatic dimension, as attacking or occupying land with significant American presence is not desirable. In what way? we're not talking about any US State investment, and any US private investment would be crazy, given the war and possibility of future war. No one would invest there. > 3. It provides money for an investment fund for rebuilding Ukraine. It's money that exists anyway, only now it's in a fund jointly controlled by US/UA rather than being controlled only by UA.
  - somethingreen 2y ago
    US gets to decide how at least half the fund gets spent, so it's US businesses who get the investment and eventually reap the profits. Ukraine obviously doesn't have the cash to give back and it will never have any without reconstruction. This is one way US gets anything at all back at a pace it has any control over. But you are correct that without security guarantees there will be no development, no reconstruction, no investments. The deal just does nothing.
Jedd 2y ago
I think there's two (perhaps more) possibilities you've overlooked, that may go some way to explaining this. First, that Donald is not the master negotiator / business genius he claims, and is not open to taking advice from smarter people. Second, misdirection. It may be something to draw attention - the whole 'who needs batteries for their car company?' thing - or it might be a decoy offer, never intended to be seriously contemplated, but will serve as an easy-for-the-dumbs-to-understand future-date hand-wavey explanation for why negotiations failed. (This seems more palatable if you already believe the current US administration is compromised.)
- an_guy 2y ago
  Third, if US owns the resources and Russia tries to seize it, US would have legit reason to send their troops to Ukraine.
  - space_fountain 2y ago
    The US has legal reasons now. Ukraine is a sovereign country and would be more than happy to accept US military bases. The US hasn't sent soldiers because they don't want to go to war with Russia
    - an_guy 2y ago
      Why would US get involved now when they have nothing to gain and possibly escalate the situation to WW3? If US owned resources in Ukraine, they have very good reason to deploy troops over there. Russia won't escalate the situation by attacking american resources and troop. This should slow down the war to a good extent combined with the cease fire agreements.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - BossingAround 2y ago
        Presumably, if US already has all of the minerals it needs, the minerals' deal is going to do as much good as is current status quo. After all, why would the US get involved when they don't need the minerals they'd have to lose?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
sgt 2y ago
I think they realized this, and the only way Trump and JD Vance & team knew how to backtrack on it, was to behave like bullies and freeze Zelensky out. Since they are well known to be bullies already (but not always), this came sort of naturally.
- belter 2y ago
  "Fact check: 33 times Zelensky thanked Americans and US leaders" - https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/28/politics/volodymyr-zelensky-thankful-us-fact-check/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/28/politics/volodymyr-zelens...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

leptons 2y ago

>What was actually going on? I really hope that Zelensky doesn't arrive back home with a bad case of novichok or polonium.

insane_dreamer 2y ago
It's a miracle he's survived all these years.
- pclmulqdq 2y ago
  I'm not convinced Russia actually wants him dead. They are doing fine with him there, and he has not done well at gathering support internationally.
  - casenmgreen 2y ago
    EU and USA have provided immense support for UA, about 250 billion USD in total IIRC. On the face of it, it's not obvious that he's doing a bad job.
    - pclmulqdq 2y ago
      This is a puppet government of the US that was installed in 2014 after they overthrew a Russian puppet government. Of course the previous US administration gave tons of support - Obama's people installed Zelensky, so Biden continuing the support makes sense. Biden's family has also made a lot of money in Ukraine under the current regime, so it was personal for him. As for Europe, this is existential for them and it's cheaper to spend Ukrainian lives on this than their own. What is missing is any other international support from parties who aren't directly interested in this conflict, like India pressuring China to stop supporting Russia.
      - casenmgreen 2y ago
        This is nuts.
        pclmulqdq 2y ago
        Where is it wrong, though? Here are a few pointers: Ukraine was Victoria Nuland's project. Her CIA had a huge hand in the protests against Yanakovich (who was, in turn, an asset of Putin's GRU), and she personally had a hand in negotiating with Yanakovich on behalf of the protestors. You should read about the events in Ukraine in 2014. That overthrow led to the retaliatory capture of Crimea, where the US and EU apparently did not learn their lesson about how much of a madman Putin is. As for the Biden Ukraine connection, I'm sure Hunter Biden is just secretly very talented at managing oil companies, which is why he was put on the board of Burisma in 2014, after Nuland's little coup. I believe the "10% for the big guy" quote was in reference to this deal, too. As for this being an existential threat to Europe, I'm not even sure you need to be given the facts about having a madman like Putin edging closer to your borders, while also depending on him for energy. Finally, on supporting your puppet governments: it's basic game theory that you should do this. Otherwise all the other ones (see much of Latin America) get overthrown.
  - IAmGraydon 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - dang 2y ago
      You've been breaking the site guidelines badly in this thread, such as here, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43222575 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43222575, and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43221102 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43221102. There are other recent cases too (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43163494 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43163494), and it unfortunately goes back a long time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33227833 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33227833 (Oct 2022) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29522959 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29522959 (Dec 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28979071 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28979071 (Oct 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16017108 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16017108 (Dec 2017) I don't want to ban you, so if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules from now on, that would be good. Among other things, that means no more personal attacks regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are.
      - IAmGraydon 2y ago
        Sorry dang. I'll dial it back.
        dang 2y ago
        Appreciated!
etc-hosts 2y ago
He might develop a bad case of Azov Battalion.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

There is one way in which it could make sense. If the US is able to extract economic benefits from Ukrainian territory, then it is likely to help Ukraine defend that territory in order to get those benefits. Now whether those benefits are lucrative enough to warrant the US' help, I think not, which is why the deal apparently included no guarantees. The $500 billion is completely bullshit - they're not worth that much.

Swenrekcah 2y ago
I would be extremely surprised if the other half of this profit fund was not eventually meant to go into Trump's pockets rather than to the United States itself.

lo_zamoyski 2y ago

The mineral deal has at least three purposes[0]: 1. It provides a way for Ukraine to become a client of US defense instead of a an aid recipient. That is, it allows Ukraine to pay for the weapons it receives. 2. It puts Americans on the ground in Ukraine in a non-military capacity. This introduces a new diplomatic dimension, as attacking or occupying land with significant American presence is not desirable. 3. It provides money for an investment fund for rebuilding Ukraine. Whether this is an effective strategy, I don't know. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/02/27/minerals-deal-ukraine-russia/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/02/27/minerals-...

DonHopkins 2y ago
You can no longer trust the Washington Post as a reliable source of opinions, like those that you're trying to shill as facts.
casenmgreen 2y ago
> 1. It provides a way for Ukraine to become a client of US defense instead of a an aid recipient. That is, it allows Ukraine to pay for the weapons it receives. The text I saw was for the formation of a jointly (US/UA) owned entity which would decide how to reinvest 50% of the profits from UA State owned minerals/related infrastructure. Unless "reinvest" means "give to US", I don't see this point happening. > 2. It puts Americans on the ground in Ukraine in a non-military capacity. This introduces a new diplomatic dimension, as attacking or occupying land with significant American presence is not desirable. In what way? we're not talking about any US State investment, and any US private investment would be crazy, given the war and possibility of future war. No one would invest there. > 3. It provides money for an investment fund for rebuilding Ukraine. It's money that exists anyway, only now it's in a fund jointly controlled by US/UA rather than being controlled only by UA.
- somethingreen 2y ago
  US gets to decide how at least half the fund gets spent, so it's US businesses who get the investment and eventually reap the profits. Ukraine obviously doesn't have the cash to give back and it will never have any without reconstruction. This is one way US gets anything at all back at a pace it has any control over. But you are correct that without security guarantees there will be no development, no reconstruction, no investments. The deal just does nothing.

Jedd 2y ago

I think there's two (perhaps more) possibilities you've overlooked, that may go some way to explaining this. First, that Donald is not the master negotiator / business genius he claims, and is not open to taking advice from smarter people. Second, misdirection. It may be something to draw attention - the whole 'who needs batteries for their car company?' thing - or it might be a decoy offer, never intended to be seriously contemplated, but will serve as an easy-for-the-dumbs-to-understand future-date hand-wavey explanation for why negotiations failed. (This seems more palatable if you already believe the current US administration is compromised.)

an_guy 2y ago
Third, if US owns the resources and Russia tries to seize it, US would have legit reason to send their troops to Ukraine.
- space_fountain 2y ago
  The US has legal reasons now. Ukraine is a sovereign country and would be more than happy to accept US military bases. The US hasn't sent soldiers because they don't want to go to war with Russia
  - an_guy 2y ago
    Why would US get involved now when they have nothing to gain and possibly escalate the situation to WW3? If US owned resources in Ukraine, they have very good reason to deploy troops over there. Russia won't escalate the situation by attacking american resources and troop. This should slow down the war to a good extent combined with the cease fire agreements.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - BossingAround 2y ago
      Presumably, if US already has all of the minerals it needs, the minerals' deal is going to do as much good as is current status quo. After all, why would the US get involved when they don't need the minerals they'd have to lose?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

sgt 2y ago

I think they realized this, and the only way Trump and JD Vance & team knew how to backtrack on it, was to behave like bullies and freeze Zelensky out. Since they are well known to be bullies already (but not always), this came sort of naturally.

belter 2y ago
"Fact check: 33 times Zelensky thanked Americans and US leaders" - https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/28/politics/volodymyr-zelensky-thankful-us-fact-check/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/28/politics/volodymyr-zelens...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]