Imo it’s more apprehension and suspicion. Trump has a history of dishonesty & empty promises. He’s already indicated a shift in our country’s direction - talk of appeasing Putin and turning his back (US back) on our allies. He denied that Russia started the war including us siding with NK and Russia in the UN. He also falsely claims the U.S. provided $350B in aid to Ukraine. So yes, there is a concern about his ‘deal.’ I fully support a sustainable and realistic fair peace in Ukraine. Russia's invasion and war crimes has been devastating for them. And Trump's words & insults have been like a knife in their back. But a partnership could be a win-win. They have valuable resources; we have the capital, equipment and expertise to invest. this could be a big win for everyone, including Trump. But, we shall see.
Would DT go so far as to not sell to EU countries if they wanted to buy? Think raytheon or others want to lose those market? If our allies feel that they cannot rely on our weapons systems, they will develop their own would elon alienate every western world by demonstrating his willingness to use starlink as a weapon?
it also would seem it could get problematic making massive deals with a country that desperately want our armaments and security.
He’ll never live to the end of his term. “Zelenski??” Even auto-correct tries to fix it for you I now know your kinship with Trump - neither of you learned to spell.
It might be the more difficult path, but Im in favor of punishing criminals not taking advantage of victims. Doesn’t seems confusing to me
awfully cavalier. Yeah. Let’s punish those Russians by throwing 10,000 more Ukrainians to their death. I would consider this quite the cagey deal. We place Americans in county to mine. Signal to Russians we are going to be there, and unlike Afghanistan we don’t leave it for the Chinese. In addition this brings the fighting to an end without putting military assets on the ground. Win all the way around.
It'd be pretty funny if the US downsized its military presence in Germany and France ..... as they follow through in the promise to increase their military capabilities ..... by redeploying those troops to Ukraine. I bet Putin would be miffed.
Trump says no troops will be sent, just civilian workers (harvesting our new minerals, I guess.) He seems to think their mere presence will deter Putin from military aggression. Maybe it will, who knows what those two have cooked up.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/02/27/minerals-deal-ukraine-russia/ 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.
They already do and do pretty well. India went with the Rafale over the F-16/F-18 and that was a very smart move. Better, more modern platform that can be land or sea based and Dassault has a reputation (Mirage) of making supply, maintenance, etc. a LOT easier than the US. Then you have platforms like the Gripen which is easy to fly (and learn), has some of the best radar counter-systems in the world, has (I think) six hard points. . . and can be landed on a 2-lane highway and serviced with a handful of techs, only one of which needs advanced training. Upfront cost is the same or more than the F-16, but backend maintenance is a fraction of an F-16. Personally, I think we need to bring companies like Dassault and Saab into our procurement system. One of my biggest concerns is the lack of any competition in our defense industry, which is the polar opposite of the environment in WWII. Under our current system, we probably don't get the F4U Corsair (all Hellcats) or the P-51 (you think we'd think about using an English engine under the current climate?). I doubt Lockheed even makes P-38s either, just tons and tons of P-47s.
Which parts of Ukraine though? I assume not the Russian occupied regions which is where Ukraine should try to incentivize this administration. The theory is not unlike I posted in advance of the Russian invasion. We all had intel that Russia was going to invade. I would have run UN joint exercises in the regions we knew that Russia planned to invade which would have forestalled their invasion.
Mining was 6% of Ukraines $200b GDP at the onset of the war. Add to this that most of Ukraine's mineral wealth is in what is currently Russian controlled regions (hmm, how convenient for someone) With significantly less that 6% of a significantly smaller GDP, it would take many, many decades, even at a 50% theft rate reparation fee, to make 100s of billions. Lastly, the minerals being discussed are not the typical national-interest type / RE metals. Certainly not at large quantities. Refining is the challenge / bottleneck in these types of resources anyway.
I'm so old that I remember that the US spent the equivalent of $150 billion in today's dollars rebuilding Western Europe after World War II under the Marshall plan and we didn't request or expect repayment. We also deployed well over 100,000 troops in Europe during the Cold War and didn't expect or receive reimbursement. We lost 36,000 American troops defending South Korea in the Korean War and maintained a permanent presence in South Korea for decades and didn't try to extort payment from the government of that country although that will probably end very soon.
