AJ02 said:

---

This is the only one that mentions the US providing any "assistance", and it's specific to the use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine.

---

I think you missed the or between Act of Aggression and nuclear weapons.

JFABNRGR said:

---

AJ02 said:

---

This is the only one that mentions the US providing any "assistance", and it's specific to the use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine.

---

I think you missed the or between Act of Aggression and nuclear weapons.

---

"If they should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of threat of aggression IN WHICH NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE USED."

When did Russia use nukes against Ukraine?

JFABNRGR said:

---

AJ02 said:

---

This is the only one that mentions the US providing any "assistance", and it's specific to the use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine.

---

I think you missed the or between Act of Aggression and nuclear weapons.

---

That interpretation makes no sense. The entire context is nuclear weapons. Either an act or a threat, both involving nuclear weapons.

AJ02 said:

---

JFABNRGR said:

---

AJ02 said:

---

This is the only one that mentions the US providing any "assistance", and it's specific to the use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine.

---

I think you missed the or between Act of Aggression and nuclear weapons.

---

"If they should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of threat of aggression IN WHICH NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE USED."

When did Russia use nukes against Ukraine?

---

Looks like I am wrong on that.

TheRealJacob said:

---

I think Putin has something on Trump, because Trump just flipped our foreign policy of 80+ years in a matter of weeks

---

Maybe there should be an investigation.

LMCane said:

---

For the conservatives (leftists and CM sock bots no need to respond please)

does it make sense when Trump cuts off weapons shipments and Zelensky comes groveling back

would it make Trump more popular in the USA to have Volodomir show up at the White House in a suit and tie and sign the agreement in front of the media?

or less popular because everyone would say he is a bully?

---

more popular

Logos Stick said:

---

JFABNRGR said:

---

AJ02 said:

---

This is the only one that mentions the US providing any "assistance", and it's specific to the use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine.

---

I think you missed the or between Act of Aggression and nuclear weapons.

---

That interpretation makes no sense. The entire context is nuclear weapons. Either an act or a threat, both involving nuclear weapons.

---

Except the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons isn't just to prevent nuclear attacks. When was the last time a country that has nukes was invaded by another country? Ukraine was giving up that security in exchange for assistance in the event of an act of aggression against them.

PA24 said:

---

When will Trump cut them off….he barks a lot.

---

Don't you worry. It's almost to the point that he's ready to say, "DON'T!"

They'll back the hell off as soon as that happens

45-70Ag said:

---

Is the interview of him saying American sons and daughters will have to die legit? And not an ai fake?

---

What interview?

jacketman03 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

JFABNRGR said:

---

AJ02 said:

---

This is the only one that mentions the US providing any "assistance", and it's specific to the use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine.

---

I think you missed the or between Act of Aggression and nuclear weapons.

---

That interpretation makes no sense. The entire context is nuclear weapons. Either an act or a threat, both involving nuclear weapons.

---

Except the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons isn't just to prevent nuclear attacks. When was the last time a country that has nukes was invaded by another country? Ukraine was giving up that security in exchange for assistance in the event of an act of aggression against them.

---

So by that logic, we are in the hook to protect them if Belarus or Poland attacks them conventionally. They literally could not spend a dime on defense since the US is on the hook for their protection FOREVER! No way I'm buying that. And why would we not be on the hook if there is a threat of attack by a non nuke country, only an attack? It doesn't make sense imo.

Thank God. Hopefully this stupid war ends soon.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

🚨 BREAKING: The United States is pausing all military aid to Ukraine, effective immediately. pic.twitter.com/Bg7xDauADS

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) March 4, 2025

---

Guess that explains part of why the American defense companies stock is dropping and Euro defense stock is going up

docb said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Thank God. Hopefully this stupid war ends soon.

---

I'll agree with that. Stupid of Putin to cause all this to begin with. He certainly cost the lives of a lot of people.

---

Agree, about like democrats and covid. New York might elect a guy again that murdered thousands of his citizens. Dictators that force propaganda down their people's throats sure is hard on your health.

100% spot on. Very well articulated. I suspect Zelensky is getting back door promises by the EU or Dems. Either way I've postulated sadly Zelensky will likely be hung by his own when all is said and done.

Generous mineral rights deal?

That's something.

50% of all of government own natural resources in perpetuity is generous?

Zobel said:

---

50% of all of government own natural resources in perpetuity is generous?

---

just so i understand where you are coming from, what in your mind would be a justifiable deal? I can't believe that you think this was all done as a blank check with no way to recoup our funds. maybe you do. I'm guessing that's what Biden thought.


but to answer your question, and assuming the 50% number you presented is accurate (it isn't), then yes, i expect that.

$350B given away at a time when we are deeply in debt and can't afford it needs to be recouped somehow. if that's what it takes and the American people are taking on the burden of funding this ridiculous stalemate with no end in sight and no way to be won then we expect some sort of ROI.

but if you feel differently then by all means send all your money, your savings, kids college funds and your paychecks to Z. Literally nothing is stopping you.

it's a lot easier to have your position when you're playing with other people's money.

If anything I understated it. Not only is it 50% of all natural resource revenues, it is also 50% of the revenue from related ports and terminals.

We made some loans, we made some grants. You may not like the terms the prior administrations (including President Trump's) agreed to. But those deals are done.

Whatever the merits of the deal may be, presenting it as largesse to Ukraine is laughable.

The rest of your post is just a strawman. I'm not advocating for a blank check, or for unrestricted grants, or free equipment, and I certainly don't want US boots on the ground. I also don't want us to develop US economic interests in such a way that may lead to a direct conflict in the future. A "quasi" security guarantee is too much for me.

It also seems line some of you think we loaded up $350bn in hundreds and flew them over. Most of what we gave was in the form of materiel, and the value was book. Those arms and ammo were replenished here, which is a form of direct stimulus to the US defense sector. It also helped reignite our domestic defense production in some sectors. Is that good subsidy? I don't know. But it's hardly immaterial.

I suspect Trump knew it never could be done. I suspect the land and or minerals have already been sold by Zelensky to another party. And so this was Trumps way of pulling out of Ukraine entirely.

Maybe. There's some many competing narratives and explanations about our goals, most of them contradictory. Nobody has any clue what we're trying to do. That's alright, only President Trump needs to really know in the end. But a lot of the explanations offered here are nonsensical.

This deal was not a favor to Ukraine. Becoming a satrapy never is.

Zobel said:

---

If anything I understated it. Not only is it 50% of all natural resource revenues, it is also 50% of the revenue from related ports and terminals.

We made some loans, we made some grants. You may not like the terms the prior administrations (including President Trump's) agreed to. But those deals are done.

Whatever the merits of the deal may be, presenting it as largesse to Ukraine is laughable.

The rest of your post is just a strawman. I'm not advocating for a blank check, or for unrestricted grants, or free equipment, and I certainly don't want US boots on the ground. I also don't want us to develop US economic interests in such a way that may lead to a direct conflict in the future. A "quasi" security guarantee is too much for me.

---

ok. then what is a good trade off in your mind? I'm
still willing to hear what you think Ukraine should have to give up to keep the faucet on?

you're right about one thing, i don't like what the previous administration did in terms of funding. A large percentage of the American people don't. It's why we just saw the opinion of the handling of the Ukraine war go from -20% under Biden to +2% under Trump.

and you can say trump agreed to some of it, but there's a new deal now, with his new administration. Like Trump said in the oval office, Z holds no cards. The game has changed. And Z may not like it but tough ****. this is the deal. don't like it? Beat feet. See if anyone in Europe will go for your ridiculous grift.

Time will tell I suppose

The deal depends on what we're getting. Access to 50% of future revenue in a development fund for an unknown value of unproven resources that may take twenty years to materialize - contingent upon the risk dropping to the point where the assets will be developed by companies - is hardly a lucrative, sure-fire bet. Especially when you consider that in the "best case" scenario for this deal there are a lot of Americans on the ground, in an area of extreme strategic interest to Russia. Now suddenly an area where we have only "sphere of influence" interests - basically energy and risk to our allies in the region - we have actual, no-kidding tangible interests. And a country where even a color revolution was taken as extreme hostility developing deep and lasting economic ties with western Europe and the US is absolutely going to be seen as aggression by Russia.

On the other hand, if your goal is de-fanging the warmaking abilities of the Russian Federation, $150bn and zero American lives lost is a pretty good deal.

I'm not saying President Trump doesn't have the prerogative to negotiate whatever deal he cares to. But we're all adults, let's call a spade a spade. Our signing up for 50% of all future government owned resource-related revenue is not generous, or gift, and I fail to see how it increases Ukranian leverage - only our own.

I don't want a resource colony in Eastern Europe. I don't want to be entangled there.

Zobel said:

---

50% of all of government own natural resources in perpetuity is generous?

---

It's a fund for joint investment in Ukraine. America makes money in investing in reconstruction.

It's not onerous at all. If anything it's a layup for America to show we have economic interest in rebuilding Ukraine.

Trump isn't going to take the minerals sold money to reinvest in America or anythingread your link.

Perpetuity is silly and you're painting the deal like some awful offer to Ukraine. It's a hook up.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

I suspect Trump knew it never could be done. I suspect the land and or minerals have already been sold by Zelensky to another party. And so this was Trumps way of pulling out of Ukraine entirely.

---

Do you have any proof to back up this conjecture?

For the record I'm not stating it as fact or anything. It's merely something I suspect. I could be wrong.

Here is an article about Ukraine and blackrock already striking an investment fund not so different really from the one proposed by Trump in a way.

And so if this is public probably more deals behind closed doors.

https://ukraineinvest.gov.ua/en/news/09-05-2023-2/#:~:text=highest%20state%20level-,An%20agreement%20with%20BlackRock%20Financial%20Market%20Advisory%20on%20providing%20support,management%20company%20in%20the%20world.

Massive and potentially decisive information warfare victory for Russia. Their payloads landed and their narratives are now dominant.

So now that we're clear that, yes, the deal is in fact for 50% of all future revenue from government owned minerals and related infrastructure.

President Trump himself says "we've been able to make a deal where we're going to get our money back and we're going to get a lot of money in the future, and I think that's appropriate."

I think you're not reading the deal correctly - "The maximum percentage of ownership of the Fund's equity and financial interests to be held by the Government of the United States of America and the decision-making authority of the representatives of the Government of the United States of America will be to the extent permissible under applicable United States laws."


I don't see how permanently taking half of all mineral revenue from a country isn't "onerous at all". And as the agreement stands now - which of course isn't finalized - it is open ended. "Future monetization of all relevant Ukrainian Government-owned natural resource assets" is perpetuity.