Trump pulls the wool over our eyes with crooked "mineral deal"

His conditions were not reasonable.

It was a complete surrender of Ukrainian statehood.

That was his middle finger to the entire deal.

He said he would only take the deal if Ukraine surrendered their state completely to be governed under the United Nations.

Trump countered that offer and said well how about Ukraine hold elections so they can choose their government themselves.

Putin said no the Ukraine doesn't get to choose their government. They have to be occupied by the United Nations.

Putin has suggested that Ukraine allow the UN to oversee an election, but I don't recall that ever being a condition of peace, or a ceasefire.

For a ceasefire his primary conditions are assurances that Ukraine wasn't entering into a ceasefire as a strategic pause to reinforce their military position. Considering that Ukraine has pulled this trick multiple times in the past, it is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask for.

For a peace agreement, his conditions are that Ukraine stays out of NATO, and no more foreign weapons or troops in Ukraine. Also perfectly reasonable things to ask for. Russia of course would also expect to keep whatever territory they currently control. (also perfectly reasonable)

Here is a quote from Lavrov from just a few days ago: (from a CBS interview with Margaret Brennan)

And regarding the ceasefire and the regarding the call to stop, President Putin immediately supported President Trump's proposal few weeks ago to establish a 30 day ceasefire provided- provided we do not repeat mistakes of the last 10 years, when deals were signed and then Ukraine would violate those deals with the support and with encouragement from Biden administration and from European countries. This was the fate of the deal of February 2014 then the- this was the fate of the Minsk agreements, and this was the fate of the deal reached on the basis of Ukrainian proposals in Istanbul in April 2022. So President Putin said, ceasefire, yes, but we want the guarantees that the ceasefire would not be used again to beef up Ukrainian military and that the support of arms should stop.
 
Last edited:
Putin has suggested that Ukraine allow the UN to oversee an election, but I don't recall that ever being a condition of peace, or a ceasefire.

For a ceasefire his primary conditions are assurances that Ukraine wasn't entering into a ceasefire as a strategic pause to reinforce their military position. Considering that Ukraine has pulled this trick multiple times in the past, it is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask for.

For a peace agreement, his conditions are that Ukraine stays out of NATO, and no more foreign weapons or troops in Ukraine. Also perfectly reasonable things to ask for.

Here is a quote from Lavrov from just a few days ago: (from a CBS interview with Margaret Brennan)
He demanded much more than the UN oversee an election.

He said that before he would agree to a peace agreement and before the negotiations of a peace deal can even occur the United Nations would have to go into Ukraine and become the government of Ukraine.

So what do you think happens after the United Nations steps in and they become the government of Ukraine?

Well what do you think happens?

Does Russia have any incentives to make a peace agreement with this new Government?

What if Russia interferes with the elections from being held under this UN government?

I'd say they have every incentive to do that. Since you know- who will stop them?

The United Nations? They have a VETO.

So now you have a UN government that's easy to topple since the Ukrainian people won't see it as legitimate and then you can just take the whole thing.
 
He demanded much more than the UN oversee an election.

He said that before he would agree to a peace agreement and before the negotiations of a peace deal can even occur the United Nations would have to go into Ukraine and become the government of Ukraine.

The only reference I can find related to that is that Putin has suggested (not "demanded") that the UN oversees an election.

Source?
 


It wouldn't be the first time that western leaders have twisted Putin's words either intentionally or unintentionally.

Here are Putin's words on the subject - and these words are probably also where these claims originated:

In principle, it would indeed be possible to discuss, under UN auspices with the United States and even European countries – and certainly with our partners and allies – the possibility of establishing a temporary administration in Ukraine. To what end? To conduct democratic elections, to bring to power a competent government that enjoys public trust, and only then to begin negotiations on a peace treaty and sign legitimate agreements that would be recognised worldwide as consistent and reliable.

This is just one option; I do not claim that others do not exist. They certainly do. At present, there is no opportunity – and perhaps no possibility – to lay out every detail, as the situation is evolving rapidly. But this remains a viable option, and such precedents exist within UN practice, as I have already noted.

As you can see above, his stated purpose with the UN would be to conduct elections. And second, he's not "demanding" it, he's exploring it as an option.

Source:
 
It wouldn't be the first time that western leaders have twisted Putin's words either intentionally or unintentionally.

Here are Putin's words on the subject - and these words are probably also where these claims originated:



As you can see above, his stated purpose with the UN would be to conduct elections. And second, he's not "demanding" it, he's exploring it as an option.

Source:

Putin made this demand in a televised speech. You can't misrepresent what he said behind closed doors because he said it on TV.

Speaking to the crew of a Russian nuclear submarine in televised remarks broadcast early Friday, Putin reaffirmed his claim that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, whose term expired last year, lacks the legitimacy to sign a peace deal.

Putin claimed that any agreement that is signed with the current Ukrainian government could be challenged by its successors but said new elections could be held under the temporary governance.

"Under the auspices of the United Nations, with the United States, even with European countries and, of course, with our partners and friends, we could discuss the possibility of introduction of temporary governance in Ukraine," Putin said, adding that it would enable the country to "hold democratic elections, to bring to power a viable government that enjoys the trust of the people, and then begin negotiations with them on a peace treaty."



 
Putin made this demand in a televised speech. You can't misrepresent what he said behind closed doors because he said it on TV.

Speaking to the crew of a Russian nuclear submarine in televised remarks broadcast early Friday, Putin reaffirmed his claim that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, whose term expired last year, lacks the legitimacy to sign a peace deal.

Putin claimed that any agreement that is signed with the current Ukrainian government could be challenged by its successors but said new elections could be held under the temporary governance.

"Under the auspices of the United Nations, with the United States, even with European countries and, of course, with our partners and friends, we could discuss the possibility of introduction of temporary governance in Ukraine," Putin said, adding that it would enable the country to "hold democratic elections, to bring to power a viable government that enjoys the trust of the people, and then begin negotiations with them on a peace treaty."


Did you even read my post? The article I linked is the source material for those quotes.

And those quotes, back up my position. As stated before, it's clear from these quotes, that you and I have now both quoted, that the intention behind the UN is to do elections.

And if you read the next couple lines of the quotes from his televised remarks, you will see that the he was exploring that as an option and not as a "demand".

I will requote it again for your convenience lol

"This is just one option; I do not claim that others do not exist. They certainly do. "

^ that does not sound like a "Demand"
 

End The Ukraine War With This One Simple Trick​


by Daniel McAdams
May 1, 2025


The long-debated “minerals deal” was finally signed between the US and Ukraine late Wednesday, after a months-long, whiplash-producing back and forth between the two parties. In the end, Wednesday started with an affirmation that the deal would be signed, then by mid-day we were told that the Ukraine government aircraft turned around mid-flight and the deal was off, and then later in the afternoon the deal was finally actually signed. That is the chaos that is Trump 2.0 foreign policy in these early days of the Administration.

The “minerals deal” that was eventually signed was billed as a miraculous breakthrough, an amazing journey from the dramatic confrontation between the US president and vice president and Zelensky in the Oval Office just weeks ago, to the point where President Trump can raise high his trophy: the signed minerals deal for which an enormous amount of US diplomatic effort has been spent!

But the deal signed Wednesday in no way resembles the original “rare earths” deal touted by President Trump just a few weeks ago. Recall that when first launched this “deal” was a way for Ukraine to “pay back” the United States for $350 billion in assistance as calculated by the Trump people. The number is only accurate if one goes back to the US-backed coup in 2014, and, ironically, through the first Trump term (where for the first time offensive weapons were provided), and past the Biden largesse after Russia’s launch of its “special military operation” in February of 2022.

And it was a payback in the “rare earths” minerals said to be so critical to our technological society that had heretofore been supplied by “adversaries” like China for which many in the Trump foreign policy team were preparing to target as soon as they solved the Ukraine issue.

The great negotiator Trump was to secure the “rare earths” minerals from Ukraine that would for certainty be withheld or forbidden when the real strategy of “confronting” China was put into place.

But it’s all kabuki theater. First off, Trump people dropped the demand that US aid to Ukraine to the tune of a third of a trillion dollars needed to be paid back. That was the backbone and rationale of the deal in the first place. No, just days ago it was determined that we would start with a clean slate with Ukraine.

Once again – as with the “Liberation Day” tariff war – maximalist demands were made, proved incredibly disruptive, and then were inexplicably reversed suddenly days later.

“Just kidding.”

And now that the “minerals deal” was finally signed to great fanfare, it turns out that it was not about “rare earths” minerals at all. As Energy and commodities columnist at Bloomberg Javier Blas reported, after looking at the radically restructured “rare earths” deal posted on X, the “deal” is primarily about “oil, natural gas and a bit of aluminum.” He added, “And the critical minerals? Rare earths?”

Even the supposed harsh terms turn out to be a paper tiger:



We’ve seen this movie before. Stealing oil from Syria and Iraq with negligible benefit to American citizens that was initially touted as a way to pay them back for our financing regime change wars. But only the well-connected Beltway parasites were well-paid.

The ludicrous “rare earths minerals deal” is a microcosm of how absurd the Trump Administration’s policy has been on the US/Russia war through proxy Ukraine in the first place.

One of the most dangerous and counter-productive additions to the new “minerals deal” is a provision that US military assistance shipped to Ukraine will go into the joint investment fund on the plus-side of the US ledger. In other words, this “breakthrough” has opened the door for the US to return to the Biden policy of endless weapons supplied to a nearly supine nation…with a promise to “pay you back” once minerals are extracted from what remains of Ukraine soil. This will serve to prolong the war that Trump claims he wants to end.

As longtime analyst Brian Berletic – with a solid track record of accuracy – wrote last week, “Today, the US government is attempting to play the role of a frustrated mediator trying to broker peace between Ukraine and Russia, when in reality this was always a war between the US and Russia.”

Perhaps driven by hubris and an obsession with vainglory, President Trump is desperate to be able to take credit for “solving” a completely fictional Ukraine/Russia war. Any doctor worth his salt would tell you that there is no way you can treat the disease if you misdiagnose the symptoms, but here we are with an Administration hypnotized by the neocon-created fantasy of a sudden attack – without antecedent – by Russia on its neighbor as a blatant land grab mixed equally with a desire to express bestial cruelty.

The only way they can sell this neocon fever dream is to reimagine Russian President Putin as a kind of golem-like figure who suddenly wakes up in the morning and decides who and how many to kill that day.

In fact this entire chapter of post-Cold War US foreign policy is defined by a desperate search for relatively easy dragons abroad to slay while sharpening our fangs to take down rival number two, Russia, with an eye on rival number one, an ascendant China.

But something happened on the road to unipolar victory: through the bad joke called NATO, the US threw everything in its arsenal short of nuclear weapons at Russia in Ukraine and it lost. In a United States thankfully defended by a wonderful geography of two protective oceans, it may be hard for our fellow citizens to understand what an existential war may look like.

Indeed, even WWII was a kind of crusade to save Europe from its own excesses. We were never threatened by Hitler or any of his riff-raff. Jews were totally safe in the US.

Russia on the other hand came to know up close and personal the murderous intent of the Nazis, and for the Soviet Union it was a matter of life and death – and we are talking tens of millions of lives – that savage Hitler with his view that Slavs were untermensch to be eliminated must be defeated.

Life or death. Americans have not faced that since, arguably, the Civil War.

So here we are in an absolutely AI kind of artificial reality where the early Trump 2.0 Administration is expending extraordinarily amounts of political, diplomatic, and other multi-layer efforts to maintain a fiction that Trump can wave his wand and remove animosity between Ukraine and Russia when all the time it was the US who was at war behind the shadows.

As the process becomes increasingly less attuned to the reality on the ground – thanks in large part to a reverse Walter Durranty-level fantasist called “General Kellogg” who for some bizarre reason continues to dominate the debate with his asinine “plan” published with neocon Fred Fleitz last April – Trump’s chimeric admonitions to his Russian counterpart to “just stop shooting” belie a kind of desperation that is doomed to fail. And he knows it.

Russia is fighting for its survival. Neocons are surfing on Ukrainian blood to “take down” Russia.

That’s it. That’s the war.

So how can President Trump square this ginormous circle and escape the traps and spider webs woven for him by all the neocons he has again hired to direct his foreign policy?

Ron Paul is often dismissed as jejune for his bons mots like “we just marched in we can just march home.” However in systems analysis many times it turns out that the simplest solution is the best solution. President Trump can end the war in Ukraine in a day (as he once promised) by simply announcing that it is not his war and he will no longer have anything to do with it.

That means no shuttle diplomacy with absurd plans, no more Steve Witkoff trafficking in Kellogg’s gilded turds. Simply a recognition of reality: literally no American who voted for Trump to save them from Biden’s inflation and woke tyranny could give a flying fornication who rules Ukraine or how it gets along with Russia. Polls back this idea as well.

To win Ukraine, Trump must wash his hands, Pontius Pilate-like, of the whole affair.

The neocons who have again steadied their swagger in Trump 2.0 love to revise the “peace through strength” mantra, as if they are the heirs of Reagan. But the real strength that brings on peace is the strength to stand up to all the Beltway neocons and desktop warriors and say, “enough.”

“This is not my war and I want to have nothing to do with it. Americans elected me to bring jobs to Middle America, not to pursue a crusade for the bloodthirsty neocon elite who fantasize of using American might to right all their perceived historical wrongs.”

America first is the real and only solution to the Ukraine problem.



Great write up by Ron Paul Institute's Daniel McAdams.

Hmmmm....

"– No debts for past aid are acknowledged
– The US will not see a single dollar from the investment, in the best circumstances, for 10 YEARS"


...winning! What else...

"One of the most dangerous and counter-productive additions to the new “minerals deal” is a provision that US military assistance shipped to Ukraine will go into the joint investment fund on the plus-side of the US ledger. In other words, this “breakthrough” has opened the door for the US to return to the Biden policy of endless weapons supplied to a nearly supine nation…with a promise to “pay you back” once minerals are extracted from what remains of Ukraine soil. This will serve to prolong the war that Trump claims he wants to end."

Let's recap....

America can now send more taxpayer funded weapons to Ukraine and those will count as "investments".

Please understand my fellow Americans the stark contrast between an "investment" and a "loan". An investment has no promise of return. This is alluded to in sections 1 and 5 where it states "the specific details will be worked out later".

Also, as Daniel points out, it does mention minerals, but it also mentions energy and energy "infrastructure" (a.k.a. LNG).

Trump is now Hunter Biden, only instead of enriching just himself by forming a fake company that will lose money, he created and eternal fake company that will lose money.

You can't make this up.

 
Did you even read my post? The article I linked is the source material for those quotes.

And those quotes, back up my position. As stated before, it's clear from these quotes, that you and I have now both quoted, that the intention behind the UN is to do elections.

And if you read the next couple lines of the quotes from his televised remarks, you will see that the he was exploring that as an option and not as a "demand".

I will requote it again for your convenience lol

"This is just one option; I do not claim that others do not exist. They certainly do. "

^ that does not sound like a "Demand"

It's technically what he is demanding since he is in fact suggesting this in the face of the deal that Trump offered to strong arm Ukraine into taking.

Since you know- he mentioned it after meeting with the Trump administration that seems to be what he is asking for.

He is asking for a bridge too far.

It's technically not even the first time he has said it.
 
Great write up by Ron Paul Institute's Daniel McAdams.

Hmmmm....

"– No debts for past aid are acknowledged
– The US will not see a single dollar from the investment, in the best circumstances, for 10 YEARS"


...winning! What else...

"One of the most dangerous and counter-productive additions to the new “minerals deal” is a provision that US military assistance shipped to Ukraine will go into the joint investment fund on the plus-side of the US ledger. In other words, this “breakthrough” has opened the door for the US to return to the Biden policy of endless weapons supplied to a nearly supine nation…with a promise to “pay you back” once minerals are extracted from what remains of Ukraine soil. This will serve to prolong the war that Trump claims he wants to end."

Let's recap....

America can now send more taxpayer funded weapons to Ukraine and those will count as "investments".

Please understand my fellow Americans the stark contrast between an "investment" and a "loan". An investment has no promise of return. This is alluded to in sections 1 and 5 where it states "the specific details will be worked out later".

Also, as Daniel points out, it does mention minerals, but it also mentions energy and energy "infrastructure" (a.k.a. LNG).

Trump is now Hunter Biden, only instead of enriching just himself by forming a fake company that will lose money, he created and eternal fake company that will lose money.

You can't make this up.



The deal is for 10 years. It's a 10 year agreement not that you don't see a dime for 10 years.

Of course the United States would be getting revenues from the economic deal.

We have a nationalized currency. Our businesses would be extracting the resources and Ukraine would be trading them for arms that our country produces.

The alternative would be leaving money on the table. This is a good deal.
 
It's technically what he is demanding since he is in fact suggesting this in the face of the deal that Trump offered to strong arm Ukraine into taking.

Since you know- he mentioned it after meeting with the Trump administration that seems to be what he is asking for.

He is asking for a bridge too far.

It's technically not even the first time he has said it.

He has suggested it before and he has good reasons for suggesting it. But he's not demanding it and it's a misrepresentation of his position to claim it so.
 
He has suggested it before and he has good reasons for suggesting it. But he's not demanding it and it's a misrepresentation of his position to claim it so.
Well I hope you are right.

I would prefer that this deal goes to rebuild Ukraine rather than weapons even if it would be better for my country's economy to spend it on weapons.

That idea of changing the government before a deal can be made is a non starter for many reasons though including the fact that Ukraine wouldn't consent to it.

The idea that the United States is going to force Ukraine to a peace agreement is one thing but it's a bridge too far to demand that the United States topple Ukraine's government so that a new government can be formed and then a peace deal can be made.

The USA already lost a lot of friends by offering to strong arm Ukraine into giving up Crimea and the Donbass.
 
The deal is for 10 years. It's a 10 year agreement not that you don't see a dime for 10 years.

Of course the United States would be getting revenues from the economic deal.

We have a nationalized currency. Our businesses would be extracting the resources and Ukraine would be trading them for arms that our country produces.

The alternative would be leaving money on the table. This is a good deal.

Sorry, Snickers, but you are completely wrong! ...but even if acptulsa thinks you're a robot, just know that I appreciate the thread bumps.

Daniel is simply pointing out that 'best case scenario' the U.S. doesn't even see a RETURN on investment for 10 years. This deal applies to "new developments". We aren't buying into existing revenue streams. We must first invest in new projects which will take time. If we actually were requiring slices of revenue streams, or war reparations/loan repayment, that might actually help.

But screw that!

Let's set up a slush-company where American tax-dollar-paid weapons go into a black hole of Nazi corruption and never come out except in the form of Ukro-Nazi terror programs!

Hunter Biden needs an apology. There's a new crackhead in town. And this one's armed to the teeth.

SIDE NOTE: The text of the agreement does not have a timeline or end date. Please report to the nearest virtual repair facility and have your prime directives related to Ukraine updated to reflect the most recent news.
 
Sorry, Snickers, but you are completely wrong! ...but even if acptulsa thinks you're a robot, just know that I appreciate the thread bumps.

Daniel is simply pointing out that 'best case scenario' the U.S. doesn't even see a RETURN on investment for 10 years. This deal applies to "new developments". We aren't buying into existing revenue streams. We must first invest in new projects which will take time. If we actually were requiring slices of revenue streams, or war reparations/loan repayment, that might actually help.

But screw that!

Let's set up a slush-company where American tax-dollar-paid weapons go into a black hole of Nazi corruption and never come out except in the form of Ukro-Nazi terror programs!

Hunter Biden needs an apology. There's a new crackhead in town. And this one's armed to the teeth.

SIDE NOTE: The text of the agreement does not have a timeline or end date. Please report to the nearest virtual repair facility and have your prime directives related to Ukraine updated to reflect the most recent news.

NBC said it's supposed to last for 10 years. I didn't imagine this.

 
A friendly reminder for everybody to refer to Post #1
Thanks,

I see what Daniel is referencing now.

Ukraine is saying the first 10 years will all be re-invested, however, that's not actually in the text of the agreement.

Snickers is short-circuiting since it's propaganda dataset is contradicting obvious facts.
 
Thanks,

I see what Daniel is referencing now.

Ukraine is saying the first 10 years will all be re-invested, however, that's not actually in the text of the agreement.

Snickers is short-circuiting since it's propaganda dataset is contradicting obvious facts.

OK this makes a lot more sense the way that reporter said it implied the agreement was for 10 years.

This is a long term agreement that could last 100 years you are right.

It seems the full text of the agreement isn't the full entire sum of all agreements.

This is just a blueprint agreement that forms the legal basis under Ukraine's government and their intention is to honor the reinvestment fund part of the agreement for 10 years after the war ends.


Ms. Skorokhod said she was told the Americans would put money into the fund — and the equivalent dollar amount of what any future military aid to Ukraine would cost.

The Ukrainians will put money into the fund from mining licenses issued for investors and royalties from the mineral resources developed under the deal. Half of that money will go into the Ukrainian budget; half will go into the joint investment fund. Senior Ukrainian officials confirmed that understanding.

Ms. Skorokhod said she was hesitant to support the deal because it lacked specifics. “It looks good, but we don’t know if it’s true or it’s a fairy tale for us to vote,” she said.

The fund would be established by both governments and managed by a limited-liability company formed in Delaware and run by three Ukrainians and three Americans, Ms. Skorokhod said. Profits would go to rebuild Ukraine after the war for the first 10 years; after that, it’s not clear what would happen with the profits.

The final terms will be detailed in future agreements.

 
OK this makes a lot more sense the way that reporter said it implied the agreement was for 10 years.

This is a long term agreement that could last 100 years you are right.

It seems the full text of the agreement isn't the full entire sum of all agreements.

This is just a blueprint agreement that forms the legal basis under Ukraine's government and their intention is to honor the reinvestment fund part of the agreement for 10 years after the war ends.


Ms. Skorokhod said she was told the Americans would put money into the fund — and the equivalent dollar amount of what any future military aid to Ukraine would cost.

The Ukrainians will put money into the fund from mining licenses issued for investors and royalties from the mineral resources developed under the deal. Half of that money will go into the Ukrainian budget; half will go into the joint investment fund. Senior Ukrainian officials confirmed that understanding.

Ms. Skorokhod said she was hesitant to support the deal because it lacked specifics. “It looks good, but we don’t know if it’s true or it’s a fairy tale for us to vote,” she said.

The fund would be established by both governments and managed by a limited-liability company formed in Delaware and run by three Ukrainians and three Americans, Ms. Skorokhod said. Profits would go to rebuild Ukraine after the war for the first 10 years; after that, it’s not clear what would happen with the profits.

The final terms will be detailed in future agreements.


Look at you learning stuff. Number 5 is alive.

 
Back
Top