What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

*** Official Russia vs. Ukraine Discussion - Invasion has begun *** (4 Viewers)

If it is not political, then please explain exactly who in the Western world doesn't want Ukraine to win, and more importantly how such people are in any position at all to influence the outcome of the war.

Include sources and links for those of us for whom it is not obvious that the vast majority want Ukraine to win.
I'd suggest typing "views on Ukraine" in Google and see what you find.
I'd suggest you let the person who made the statement answer the question
I'd suggest you back off and chill out man. Geez. An innocuous "I don't think it's obvious" is a pretty benign statement. In fact, it could be viewed to be as political as your follow up
 
If it is not political, then please explain exactly who in the Western world doesn't want Ukraine to win, and more importantly how such people are in any position at all to influence the outcome of the war.

Include sources and links for those of us for whom it is not obvious that the vast majority want Ukraine to win.
I'd suggest typing "views on Ukraine" in Google and see what you find.
I'd suggest you let the person who made the statement answer the question
I'd suggest you back off and chill out man. Geez. An innocuous "I don't think it's obvious" is a pretty benign statement. In fact, it could be viewed to be as political as your follow up
It was a simple, objective question. Sad that you couldn't even attempt an objective answer
 
If it is not political, then please explain exactly who in the Western world doesn't want Ukraine to win, and more importantly how such people are in any position at all to influence the outcome of the war.

Include sources and links for those of us for whom it is not obvious that the vast majority want Ukraine to win.
I'd suggest typing "views on Ukraine" in Google and see what you find.
I'd suggest you let the person who made the statement answer the question
I'd suggest you back off and chill out man. Geez. An innocuous "I don't think it's obvious" is a pretty benign statement. In fact, it could be viewed to be as political as your follow up
It was a simple, objective question. Sad that you couldn't even attempt an objective answer
I will drop this now. Carry on all
 
Obviously we all want Ukraine to win, but at some point you just have to shut off the spigot.
I don't think it is obvious that everyone wants them to win, that's part of the thing
To @BassNBrew 's point, just stop with these transparent political innuendos unless you want to get this thing locked
huh?
It's not political innuendo, it's just a fact. There are people who think that Ukraine losing the war is an outcome that is tolerable
Whatever you say
I don't know why you are all pissy about this comment. Do you think the world is united in their thoughts on the war?
If it is not political, then please explain exactly who in the Western world doesn't want Ukraine to win, and more importantly how such people are in any position at all to influence the outcome of the war.

Include sources and links for those of us for whom it is not obvious that the vast majority want Ukraine to win.
I don't know if wanting Russia to 'win' is accurate, but people like John Mearsheimer and Noam Chomsky think Ukraine, with prodding from western intelligence agencies, got this started 15 years ago. To what end, your guess is as good as mine, but I think it is all about saving face at this point.
 
Obviously we all want Ukraine to win, but at some point you just have to shut off the spigot.
I don't think it is obvious that everyone wants them to win, that's part of the thing
Has anybody defined what "winning" looks like? This war reminds me a lot of Afghanistan.
Plainly... Russia gains territory pre-2022 borders is a win for Russia. Reset to 2022 borders, anything less is a bad peace.
 
I get sense Ukraine can do just fine without US support. Russia seems incapable of making any advances into the drone zone.
what is this sense based on?
I'm not an expert. They aren't charging across the front in Bradley's and Abrams with f16 cover. They are winning by drones that are mostly diy. Russia is depleted to the point where they have no significant armour to advance with.
you said ukraine would do just fine without us and then state russia is winning.

If Russia is winning with our support, how can you possibly think ukraine would be okay without our support?

I can't really follow this question at all.
if ukraine is losing with our support, how will they win, or "do just fine", without our support?

I don't really think they are losing. Those are your words.
first, what facts are you basing this on? go look at any war map and you will see russia has been winning.

second, see your own bolded words above, gb.
 
I'm not reading all the posts nor follow up to my post, but all the president is doing is trying to get us something out of helping Ukraine. Does it come across bad? probably. There are plenty of people that think we should spend indefinitely to protect freedom. But we have spent trillions fighting for others. And we have hardly anything to show for it. He wants mineral rights and other things that China gets in their dealings overseas, particularly in Africa. Ukraine would not give him what he wanted. And he showed Ukraine what he will do unless they cave. Our pres, like it or not, authored the Art of the Deal. And that's all you need to know. Everything is a deal. You don't have to like it. But is it any worse than spending trillions over the past 20 years to pretty much get nothing in return from Afghanistam, Iraq, Ukraine, etc, etc, etc, What would it hurt the US if Ukraine became Russian? A couple of extra seaports that they will get eventually anyway. Putin will die at some point too. So they will go back in their hole. What would it hurt the US if Taiwan becomes China? Semiconductors that need to move elsewhere. Other than that ... meh. World peace is expensive to protect, and some of these other countries need to step it up when it effects them far more than us. That's my take. Out.
 
Obviously we all want Ukraine to win, but at some point you just have to shut off the spigot.
I don't think it is obvious that everyone wants them to win, that's part of the thing
Has anybody defined what "winning" looks like? This war reminds me a lot of Afghanistan.
Plainly... Russia gains territory pre-2022 borders is a win for Russia. Reset to 2022 borders, anything less is a bad peace.
I personally don't think that's going to happen, Russia isn't giving anything back. Think the conversation starts at were the border is today with a little give & take.
 
Obviously we all want Ukraine to win, but at some point you just have to shut off the spigot.
I don't think it is obvious that everyone wants them to win, that's part of the thing
Has anybody defined what "winning" looks like? This war reminds me a lot of Afghanistan.
Plainly... Russia gains territory pre-2022 borders is a win for Russia. Reset to 2022 borders, anything less is a bad peace.
I personally don't think that's going to happen, Russia isn't giving anything back. Think the conversation starts at were the border is today with a little give & take.
And if this occurs, there should be a tripwire in response to any further aggression from Russia or Belarus.
 
Obviously we all want Ukraine to win, but at some point you just have to shut off the spigot.
I don't think it is obvious that everyone wants them to win, that's part of the thing
Has anybody defined what "winning" looks like? This war reminds me a lot of Afghanistan.
Plainly... Russia gains territory pre-2022 borders is a win for Russia. Reset to 2022 borders, anything less is a bad peace.
I personally don't think that's going to happen, Russia isn't giving anything back. Think the conversation starts at were the border is today with a little give & take.
And if this occurs, there should be a tripwire in response to any further aggression from Russia or Belarus.
And I'd say, if I was them at least, some kind of check put into place regarding NATO expansion. At some point we need co-exist without the threat of nuclear war every time someone sneezes in the area. Pie in the sky, I know.
 
Obviously we all want Ukraine to win, but at some point you just have to shut off the spigot.
I don't think it is obvious that everyone wants them to win, that's part of the thing
Has anybody defined what "winning" looks like? This war reminds me a lot of Afghanistan.
Plainly... Russia gains territory pre-2022 borders is a win for Russia. Reset to 2022 borders, anything less is a bad peace.
I personally don't think that's going to happen, Russia isn't giving anything back. Think the conversation starts at were the border is today with a little give & take.
And if this occurs, there should be a tripwire in response to any further aggression from Russia or Belarus.
Will there also be tripwires to ensure that US intelligence agencies don't meddle in the politics of non-NATO members?
 
Security guarantee is by far the largest negotiation issue IMO. Next would be so-called "free elections."

Land is relatively minor since it doesn't have any major strategic significance. Plus Ukraine has very little leverage to force its return.
 
Our pres, like it or not, authored the Art of the Deal. And that's all you need to know. Everything is a deal.

This. It's how he sees everything. I've seen it first hand in my work. Obviously not gonna give details....(and nothing Id say would come as a shock to anyone. His rep in this area proceeds him) but the amount of time that organization/family is willing to waste (or make other people waste) "renegotiating" something they already agreed to (and we're not talking about a life changing amount of money here) is astonishing.

Edit: and honestly...I don't think it's "wrong" to expect something for continuing to help with no clear end in sight.
 
I'm not reading all the posts nor follow up to my post, but all the president is doing is trying to get us something out of helping Ukraine. Does it come across bad? probably. There are plenty of people that think we should spend indefinitely to protect freedom. But we have spent trillions fighting for others. And we have hardly anything to show for it. He wants mineral rights and other things that China gets in their dealings overseas, particularly in Africa. Ukraine would not give him what he wanted. And he showed Ukraine what he will do unless they cave. Our pres, like it or not, authored the Art of the Deal. And that's all you need to know. Everything is a deal. You don't have to like it. But is it any worse than spending trillions over the past 20 years to pretty much get nothing in return from Afghanistam, Iraq, Ukraine, etc, etc, etc, What would it hurt the US if Ukraine became Russian? A couple of extra seaports that they will get eventually anyway. Putin will die at some point too. So they will go back in their hole. What would it hurt the US if Taiwan becomes China? Semiconductors that need to move elsewhere. Other than that ... meh. World peace is expensive to protect, and some of these other countries need to step it up when it effects them far more than us. That's my take. Out.

i have some ocean front property to sell you in nebraska if you think Russia or China will stop with either one.

If we forgo Ukraine/Taiwan, do you think any country will ever trust or want to be allied with us again? As an example, when China looks at Vietnam, again, they will also fold and all of our economic development and ties with them will be wasted.

That type of aggression will continue and we will lose our wold dominance not just militarily but economically as well. That will be a very dark day for America and our children.
 
Security guarantee is by far the largest negotiation issue IMO. Next would be so-called "free elections."

Land is relatively minor since it doesn't have any major strategic significance. Plus Ukraine has very little leverage to force its return.
I don't think Putin will agree to have free elections in Russia. But I guess it doesn't hurt to ask in the negotiations.
 
Security guarantee is by far the largest negotiation issue IMO. Next would be so-called "free elections."

Land is relatively minor since it doesn't have any major strategic significance. Plus Ukraine has very little leverage to force its return.
I don't think Putin will agree to have free elections in Russia. But I guess it doesn't hurt to ask in the negotiations.
Putin wants elections to be free and fair, just like they are in Russia.
 
Evidently there are significant rare earth deposits in the Russian occupied Donetsk region. So that will obviously complicate the land aspect of the negotiations seeing how it is now of importance to the U.S.
 
Evidently there are significant rare earth deposits in the Russian occupied Donetsk region. So that will obviously complicate the land aspect of the negotiations seeing how it is now of importance to the U.S.

Forum rules prohibit my take on this. If anyone wants Elon's AI's take, that's Grok 3, the smartest AI in the world according to Elon, I'll gladly forward a long analysis.
 
There was a time when I went down a rabbit hole regarding Chernobyl and was fascinated with the whole accident, cause, follow up and eventual building of the sarcophagus and now this new structure. To fly drones into it, accidentally or on purpose is extremely troubling. That site still has the ability to end a lot of people for the next few hundred years and if the idiots (whoever they are) ever drop a bomb on the spot, a good portion of Europe will have a lot more to worry about than the war.
 

U.S. says all NATO members should meet 2% defence spending target by June​


The White House said Thursday that it expects all NATO members to be spending at least two per cent of their GDP on defence by the alliance's next summit — four months from now.

The demand further ramps up pressure on allies like Canada — which has long missed the spending target and doesn't plan to meet it for another seven years — from U.S. President Donald Trump, who is pushing for drastic defence spending increases and reducing reliance on U.S. security.

"The fact that we are going to enter into a NATO summit this June with a third of our NATO allies not meeting the two per cent minimum — a commitment they made a decade ago ... that's unacceptable," Trump's national security advisor Mike Waltz said at a press conference at the White House.

"President Trump's made that clear. The minimum needs to be met — we need to be at 100 per cent [by] this June at the NATO summit, and then let's talk about exceeding it."

NATO leaders are set to gather June 24 for three days at the Hague in the Netherlands for the alliance's annual summit, the first held since Trump returned to the White House.

Trump has repeatedly called for the spending threshold to be raised to five per cent of GDP, a level no NATO member currently meets.

Canada is among the eight out of 32 NATO members that currently don't meet the two per cent target, which was first agreed to in 2014. About 1.3 per cent of Canada's GDP was spent on defence last year.

The federal government has committed to hitting 1.7 per cent by 2030 as part of its defence policy update and says it is on track to reach two per cent by 2032.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau revealed the latter timeline during the last NATO summit in Washington, D.C., but the parliamentary budget officer has since raised doubts on whether it can be achieved.

U.S. lawmakers have said Canada's commitments, while welcome, aren't fast enough given the current geopolitical climate. Trump has raised defence spending as one of many issues he has with Canada in his calls to make the country the 51st U.S. state.

Defence Minister Bill Blair said last month it's "absolutely achievable" for Canada to reach the NATO spending target sooner than 2032, but wouldn't commit to a quicker timetable.

In a statement to Global News Thursday in response to Waltz's comments, Blair's office still would not say when Canada could hit two per cent on an accelerated timeline but reaffirmed the government's "clear, credible, and achievable path to reach" the NATO target.

"We want to get this done as quickly as possible, while recognizing that there are decisions that Canada has to make with respect to the availability of the funding required to meet NATO's two per cent target," the statement said.

Chrystia Freeland, the former finance minister who's running to replace Trudeau in the Liberal leadership race, has promised to reach two per cent by 2027 if she wins. Her chief rival for the job, front-runner Mark Carney, has set a 2030 target.


Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has not committed to a timeline for meeting the NATO spending threshold, but has promised a government led by him would work toward it while cutting wasteful spending.

Trump's calls for greater burden sharing on collective defence from NATO allies has sparked concerns about his commitment to the alliance, but Waltz said the U.S. still takes its role in NATO seriously.

"We fully support our NATO allies, we fully support our Article 5 commitment [to collective defence], but it's time for our European allies to step up," he said.
 

Macron: Europe needs "large-scale defence plan"​


French President Emmanuel Macron has urged Europeans to make strategic decisions regarding Europe’s defence in the coming weeks and to introduce joint European financing to boost procurement and production.

Quote from Macron: "This strategic awakening must lead us to a decision on a large-scale defence plan and significant investments in Europe. And these strategic decisions must be made in the coming weeks."

Details: Meanwhile, Macron also reiterated his support for the idea of joint European financing to "buy and produce more".

Macron believes while it would be very difficult for Europe to have a unified army, it is possible to develop shared defence capabilities. Otherwise, the continent will fail to enhance its autonomy from the United States.

France, for its part, must also increase the share of its budget allocated to defence.

Quote from Macron: "All countries on the front line [such as Poland] are spending 4 or 5% of their gross domestic product, whereas we are at just 2%. These were the levels we had in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s during the Cold War. Then the Berlin Wall fell and we invested far less. That era is over."

Details: Macron did not rule out introducing special savings schemes to finance specific defence programmes.

Quote from Macron: "We are entering a time when each of us must ask ourselves what we can do for the French nation and the Republic. In this sense, such a savings scheme would be a very good idea."

Details: However, Macron ruled out the reintroduction of compulsory military service.

Quote from Macron: "Military service is currently suspended. We have a professional army and today our priority is the security of French territory and our allies. Reinstating such a service overnight would be an enormous burden."

Background: Benjamin Haddad, French Minister Delegate for European Affairs, previously stated that Macron would speak on behalf of Europeans during his visit to the United States, making it clear that Ukraine’s future cannot be decided without them.
 

Macron: Europe needs "large-scale defence plan"​


French President Emmanuel Macron has urged Europeans to make strategic decisions regarding Europe’s defence in the coming weeks and to introduce joint European financing to boost procurement and production.

Quote from Macron: "This strategic awakening must lead us to a decision on a large-scale defence plan and significant investments in Europe. And these strategic decisions must be made in the coming weeks."

Details: Meanwhile, Macron also reiterated his support for the idea of joint European financing to "buy and produce more".

Macron believes while it would be very difficult for Europe to have a unified army, it is possible to develop shared defence capabilities. Otherwise, the continent will fail to enhance its autonomy from the United States.

France, for its part, must also increase the share of its budget allocated to defence.

Quote from Macron: "All countries on the front line [such as Poland] are spending 4 or 5% of their gross domestic product, whereas we are at just 2%. These were the levels we had in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s during the Cold War. Then the Berlin Wall fell and we invested far less. That era is over."

Details: Macron did not rule out introducing special savings schemes to finance specific defence programmes.

Quote from Macron: "We are entering a time when each of us must ask ourselves what we can do for the French nation and the Republic. In this sense, such a savings scheme would be a very good idea."

Details: However, Macron ruled out the reintroduction of compulsory military service.

Quote from Macron: "Military service is currently suspended. We have a professional army and today our priority is the security of French territory and our allies. Reinstating such a service overnight would be an enormous burden."

Background: Benjamin Haddad, French Minister Delegate for European Affairs, previously stated that Macron would speak on behalf of Europeans during his visit to the United States, making it clear that Ukraine’s future cannot be decided without them.
Feels like this should have been discussed in 1945?
 
ABC News - Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's team is working on an updated agreement between Ukraine and the United States for Ukraine to agree to give the U.S. revenue from some of Ukraine's most valuable resources, a Ukrainian official told ABC News.

A U.S. official with knowledge of the negotiations said a new version of the deal between the two countries has been put on the table.

The document currently on the table is a work in progress after the Trump administration initially proposed Ukraine provide the U.S. government with 50% of the revenue from some of its key resources, including minerals, oil, gas and ports a week ago, according to a draft document reviewed by ABC News and a Ukrainian official familiar with the matter.

"I told them to show the security guarantees, and then we talk about the percentage. They said 50% and I replied NO. I can't sell the country off. I'm just a manager. Tomorrow, the country will have another manager, so I can't sell it. Besides, around 20% of resources are in Russia-occupied territory," Zelenskyy said during a press conference Wednesday.

"There can be, in my view, nothing better, for Ukraine's future and for their security than to have the United States invested in their prosperity long term," [NSA Chief] Waltz said.

It was unclear what changes the Ukrainian side had proposed during their discussions with Kellogg on Thursday.
 
ABC News - Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's team is working on an updated agreement between Ukraine and the United States for Ukraine to agree to give the U.S. revenue from some of Ukraine's most valuable resources, a Ukrainian official told ABC News.

A U.S. official with knowledge of the negotiations said a new version of the deal between the two countries has been put on the table.

The document currently on the table is a work in progress after the Trump administration initially proposed Ukraine provide the U.S. government with 50% of the revenue from some of its key resources, including minerals, oil, gas and ports a week ago, according to a draft document reviewed by ABC News and a Ukrainian official familiar with the matter.

"I told them to show the security guarantees, and then we talk about the percentage. They said 50% and I replied NO. I can't sell the country off. I'm just a manager. Tomorrow, the country will have another manager, so I can't sell it. Besides, around 20% of resources are in Russia-occupied territory," Zelenskyy said during a press conference Wednesday.

"There can be, in my view, nothing better, for Ukraine's future and for their security than to have the United States invested in their prosperity long term," [NSA Chief] Waltz said.

It was unclear what changes the Ukrainian side had proposed during their discussions with Kellogg on Thursday.
The long con coming to fruition
 
Closing in on a mineral rights deal...

The U.S. and Ukraine are nearing a deal that would hand valuable mineral rights to the U.S...as compensation for military aid to fight off Russia’s invasion, people familiar with the matter said.

In an apparent nod to an impending deal, Zelensky said in a nightly video address Friday that teams of U.S. and Ukrainian negotiators were working on a draft agreement.

“This is an agreement that can strengthen our relations, and the key is to work out the details to ensure its effectiveness,” he said. “I look forward to the outcome—a just result.”

An agreement could be signed as soon as Saturday, although it isn’t yet complete, people briefed on the talks said. The exact terms couldn’t be learned.

A person close to the government in Kyiv said Kellogg played “a big part” in finalizing terms of the deal by building trust with Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials over a three-day visit to the country’s capital.

Source: WSJ
 
ABC News - Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's team is working on an updated agreement between Ukraine and the United States for Ukraine to agree to give the U.S. revenue from some of Ukraine's most valuable resources, a Ukrainian official told ABC News.
I haven't kept up with the rare earth thing. So now the US doesn't want the minerals at all, it just wants the money from their sale?
 

Macron: Europe needs "large-scale defence plan"​


French President Emmanuel Macron has urged Europeans to make strategic decisions regarding Europe’s defence in the coming weeks and to introduce joint European financing to boost procurement and production.

Quote from Macron: "This strategic awakening must lead us to a decision on a large-scale defence plan and significant investments in Europe. And these strategic decisions must be made in the coming weeks."

Details: Meanwhile, Macron also reiterated his support for the idea of joint European financing to "buy and produce more".

Macron believes while it would be very difficult for Europe to have a unified army, it is possible to develop shared defence capabilities. Otherwise, the continent will fail to enhance its autonomy from the United States.

France, for its part, must also increase the share of its budget allocated to defence.

Quote from Macron: "All countries on the front line [such as Poland] are spending 4 or 5% of their gross domestic product, whereas we are at just 2%. These were the levels we had in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s during the Cold War. Then the Berlin Wall fell and we invested far less. That era is over."

Details: Macron did not rule out introducing special savings schemes to finance specific defence programmes.

Quote from Macron: "We are entering a time when each of us must ask ourselves what we can do for the French nation and the Republic. In this sense, such a savings scheme would be a very good idea."

Details: However, Macron ruled out the reintroduction of compulsory military service.

Quote from Macron: "Military service is currently suspended. We have a professional army and today our priority is the security of French territory and our allies. Reinstating such a service overnight would be an enormous burden."

Background: Benjamin Haddad, French Minister Delegate for European Affairs, previously stated that Macron would speak on behalf of Europeans during his visit to the United States, making it clear that Ukraine’s future cannot be decided without them.
Feels like this should have been discussed in 1945?

The Marshall Plan passed in 1948 re-built a devastated Europe after World War II, a Europe that was devastated emotionally, financially, and in manpower. The Marshall Plan might have been the greatest investment the United States has ever made in foreign aid and understanding, seeing as how it helped engender and make possible the alliances that kept Europe from coming under completely communist rule and left them indebted to the U.S. for its largesse. We, not the Russians, opened up markets in Europe and Europeans sought to buy our goods and services rather than those of Soviet Russia. We not only scored a political victory in that sense, but also an economic one. It was in our interest to do so and dovetailed neatly with our understanding of the good life and human rights.

The United States safeguarded Europe from Russia when it needed it most. The Berlin Wall falling and its aftermath was probably the most irrationally exuberant we could have been about liberal democracy ascending to such heights that defense budgets were no longer as necessary with the United States providing cover for an admittedly increasingly profligate Europe that was willing to free ride on America's defense budget and capability. In addition, it was also nuclear warfare that discouraged local armies and defense spending as countries considered traditional warfare obsolete and nuclear warfare as anathema to humanity (it is), an odious proposition not to be invested in. Such is Europe.

But in '45 we needed to save Europe and rebuild it rather than let Russia have it. We face a similar situation today with the Ukraine. I'm not making any political point with this, but just to point out that if we don't invest in the world, darker forces are always ready to do so. Can we or they afford to do that any longer and is it efficacious to do so? This is what we're debating. Time will tell.
 
Last edited:
Europe riding on US security guarantees should move on from that paradigm. The US is not the ally to Europe that it once was. This will likely have an effect on the social services in European countries. Hopefully it will spur efficiencies and not simply erase the social safety net in favor of higher defense spending.
 
Obviously we all want Ukraine to win, but at some point you just have to shut off the spigot.
I don't think it is obvious that everyone wants them to win, that's part of the thing
Has anybody defined what "winning" looks like? This war reminds me a lot of Afghanistan.
Plainly... Russia gains territory pre-2022 borders is a win for Russia. Reset to 2022 borders, anything less is a bad peace.
I personally don't think that's going to happen, Russia isn't giving anything back. Think the conversation starts at were the border is today with a little give & take.

Russia needed an off-ramp somewhere. They were never giving anything back and would grind away until the last soldier on both sides.

They would never concede anything to Ukraine as they would view it as weakness. Question is Ukraine has been pretty much demolished and unlivable in many parts because of Russia. Who is going to rebuild it? If they even try?
 
ABC News - Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's team is working on an updated agreement between Ukraine and the United States for Ukraine to agree to give the U.S. revenue from some of Ukraine's most valuable resources, a Ukrainian official told ABC News.
I haven't kept up with the rare earth thing. So now the US doesn't want the minerals at all, it just wants the money from their sale?
Joint investment fund from what I understand. Not too many details available
 
ABC News - Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's team is working on an updated agreement between Ukraine and the United States for Ukraine to agree to give the U.S. revenue from some of Ukraine's most valuable resources, a Ukrainian official told ABC News.
I haven't kept up with the rare earth thing. So now the US doesn't want the minerals at all, it just wants the money from their sale?
Joint investment fund from what I understand. Not too many details available
National Security Advisor Michael Waltz sat down with Megyn Kelly yesterday and commented Ukraine has the ability to provide United States with 100% of our aluminum needs with a little investment.
 
ABC News - Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's team is working on an updated agreement between Ukraine and the United States for Ukraine to agree to give the U.S. revenue from some of Ukraine's most valuable resources, a Ukrainian official told ABC News.
I haven't kept up with the rare earth thing. So now the US doesn't want the minerals at all, it just wants the money from their sale?
Joint investment fund from what I understand. Not too many details available
National Security Advisor Michael Waltz sat down with Megyn Kelly yesterday and commented Ukraine has the ability to provide United States with 100% of our aluminum needs with a little investment.
If it's a true mining JV then it also serves to reinforce any formal security guarantee.

A substantial U.S. financial stake and a few thousand American citizens spread throughout the Ukrainian countryside on a long-term basis will give Putin pause prior to contemplating another invasion.
 
ABC News - Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's team is working on an updated agreement between Ukraine and the United States for Ukraine to agree to give the U.S. revenue from some of Ukraine's most valuable resources, a Ukrainian official told ABC News.
I haven't kept up with the rare earth thing. So now the US doesn't want the minerals at all, it just wants the money from their sale?
Joint investment fund from what I understand. Not too many details available
National Security Advisor Michael Waltz sat down with Megyn Kelly yesterday and commented Ukraine has the ability to provide United States with 100% of our aluminum needs with a little investment.
If it's a true mining JV then it also serves to reinforce any formal security guarantee.

A substantial U.S. financial stake and a few thousand American citizens spread throughout the Ukrainian countryside on a long-term basis will give Putin pause prior to contemplating another invasion.
Yep. Feels like a good way to help provide a deterrent without us actually using troops.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top