A Commercial Peace Agreement? 

Written By: - Date published: 10:54 am, February 20th, 2025 - 68 comments
Categories: Donald Trump, International, Peace, Russia, Ukraine, uncategorized, war - Tags:

Trump’s opening bid for peace towards Ukraine was that the United States would gain access to Ukraine’s rare earth minerals.

According to reports, United States officials in discussions with their Ukraine counterparts in Munich were commercially minded and largely concentrated on the specifics of exploring the minerals and how to form a possible partnership to do that with Ukraine, a senior official said to PBS. 

The U.S. proposal apparently did not take into account how the deposits would be secured in the event of continuing Russian aggression.

In Riyyad where Russian and US negotiators are meeting face to face about the Ukraine, they are similarly focusing on the commercial opportunities for both Russia and the United States that could emerge out of an end to war.

Naturally Ukraine President Zelenskyy isn’t buying this. 

If ever there were a rationality that might appeal to President Putin of Russia enough to stop fighting, pure commercial interests are the best shot.

In case we needed to recap on how we got here, for nearly three years Russia has waged war on the Ukraine with a massive invasion. They have destroyed dozens of cities and villages. They have bombed residential areas, cultural centres, schools, places of worship, the Chernobyl nuclear radiation containment shield, and other non-military targets. The Russians have displaced 25% of Ukraine’s population, and killed thousands of its citizens. It has been devastating and is has been vast.

Russian in turn has sustained over 800,000 casualties since the start of the war, both dead and injured.

To condemn the Russian Federation for its behaviour, the international community came together to punish Russia with sanctions.Several Russian banks have been removed from SWIFT, thousands of companies have terminated or suspended business operations in Russia, hundreds of Russian oligarchs have had their assets frozen or seized, and several countries around the world have reduced their consumption fo Russian gas.

Russian exports and trade have been significantly impacted. With thousands of Western companies no longer trading with Russia, times are tougher. Fear of additional punishments has caused several “sanction busters” to cease operations. 

Russia’s economic growth is now heavily tied to military spending, with investments tilted towards war related industries, import substitution, and infrastructure projects to facilitate trade with China.

The Russian economy has proven remarkably resilient in the face of these international pressures, but the grind is working downward.

68 comments on “A Commercial Peace Agreement?  ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. SPC 1
    20 February 2025 at 11:03 am

    Lindsay Gramm told Trump about the rare earth minerals in Ukraine a few weeks ago – Trump had no idea about this and what Putin's motive for land in Ukraine was. It was never about NATO expansion/Russian security or about ethnic Russians, it was a land and resources grab.

    As per Iraq invading Kuwait.

    Trump and Putin see Ukraine as Prussia, Austria and Russia saw Poland in the late 18th C when they carved it up 3 times until there was no Poland for over a 100 years.

    Though most will note the von Ribbentrop Molotov deal.

    Germany planned to betray this by attacking Russia, and Russia moved their industry to the east, so as to survive the attack and then mount a counter-offensive.

    Back then the GOP lot were financing German re-armament because they wanted Russia defeated – when they failed to get their way they attacked their own nation with HUAC to destroy those who helped defeat Germany. Now they see AFD as their mates and want the EU destroyed.

    Gramm we have to stop Russia – Trump – he and Putin can do a deal where the USA gets in on the action.

  2. tWig 2
    20 February 2025 at 11:09 am

    Pre-2014 Ukraine's oil reserves are/were in the areas that Russia targeted first.

    Three Ukrainian regions contain hydrocarbons resources: the Dnipro-Donetsk basin, the Carpathian region in western Ukraine, and the Black Sea and Crimea region in the south. The Dnipro-Donetsk basin is a major oil and gas producing region accounting for 90 percent of all current Ukrainian production. Source.

    Trump didn't say he wanted access to the rare minerals, he demanded half of them in return for US military aid to date.

    • SPC 2.1
      20 February 2025 at 11:16 am

      Sort of, but the Europeans are moving away from use of oil and gas towards the use of rare earth minerals – such as lithium in the car battery. The future proofing of the Russian economy is with the rare earth minerals under the Ukraine land.

    • mikesh 2.2
      20 February 2025 at 12:14 pm

      Trump didn't say he wanted access to the rare minerals, he demanded half of them in return for US military aid to date.

      How do you know this? Is there a link available?

      The Swedes are supplying a lot of weapons; what will be their share? (Assuming this all true.)

      • SPC 2.2.1
        20 February 2025 at 12:34 pm

        This took a second googling.

        Trump didn't say he wanted access to the rare minerals, he demanded half of them in return for US military aid to date.

        https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-officials-us-owning-half-ukraine-rare-earth-minerals-rcna192325

        • mikesh 2.2.1.1
          20 February 2025 at 3:06 pm

          One would hope that Putin will tell Trump to get lost: the minerals belong to Ukraine, in the first instance, and to the Northern continent in the second, and should be used to boost the economies of countries on that continent. One would hope that Zelensky would back him up on that.

          If the US wishes to outlay billions of dollars on a proxy war against Russia, the can't really expect to be reimbursed for it, surely.

          The raiding of various countries’ assets by the US is the very thing that Puttn is fighting against.

          • tWig 2.2.1.1.1
            20 February 2025 at 3:46 pm

            Actually, it would make proxy wars, and invasions of neighbouring countries to secure their oil and mineral resources more transparent. I'm kinda half in favour, in a weird way.

          • Populuxe 2.2.1.1.2
            21 February 2025 at 1:07 pm

            The raiding of various countries’ assets by the US is the very thing that Puttn is fighting against.

            It's just rather a pity that Putin doesn't consult with said countries before invading their sovereign territory, slaughtering their citizens and kidnapping their children….

          • Res Publica 2.2.1.1.3
            21 February 2025 at 3:24 pm

            The raiding of various countries’ assets by the US is the very thing that Puttn is fighting against.

            Only so those assets are around for him to loot later.

            The only freedom Russia is fighting for is there freedom to reimpose the imperial rule over eastern Europe they consider their birthright.

  3. Sanctuary 3
    20 February 2025 at 11:29 am

    It got a lot worse over night with Trump's unhinged rant against Zelensky where he repeated every odious Kremlin talking point almost verbatim. Zelensky's crime? He dared tell the truth and say Trump lives inside a Russian disinformation bubble. Trump was clearly pissed off at the push-back, and reacted with all the rage one would expect from a sullen, resentful and vindictive 78 year old narcissist.

    Let's be honest – if Zelensky was the dictator Trump accuses him of, he'd be Trump's best buddy.

    Anyway, it is clear now the White House and the Kremlin are now aligned on Ukraine. The US just wants a share of the spoils from dismembering Ukraine.

    So:

    1 – Trump and Putin are preparing a common plan to carve up Ukraine.

    2 – The Ukrainians will refuse and fight on.

    3 – The role of Europe will be decisive

    4 – The United States is now an enemy of democracy, and all the talk about a just peace or what is needed to keep Ukraine a free and sovereign country has been flim-flam.

    I have thought it wild that after the UK NZ became the second country to have a bipartisan commitment to commit troops to Ukraine with barely a murmur of debate in the media. Let's be clear. Committing NZ troops to the Ukraine will, given the messianic and mystical basis to Putin's aggression, sooner or later involve our army in a full-on, high-intensity war with the Russian army. Now, I support sending troops to Ukraine – even if necessary as part of an expeditionary force to wage war against Russia. But with some significant caveats. Not one NZ soldier to go before European ones. Not one NZ soldier to go before they have everything they need to fight a war, and more besides.

    Even more wild, NZ has to actually start considering what a post-US security guarantee world might look like for us militarily. If the slide into American fascism continues, we are going to need to spend a lot more on weapons because we might even have to consider what frankly was a nonsense idea just a few months back – how would we defend ourselves from the United States?

    • SPC 3.1
      20 February 2025 at 11:39 am

      Not directly, but a US that could carve up Ukraine with Putin is one that could carve up the Pacific with China. Half the minerals under the sea each etc.

      Do we stand by the South Pacific islands and ASEAN nations (South China Sea) or not?

      The Australians must now be regretting dumping the French deal for AUKUS.

      • tWig 3.1.1
        20 February 2025 at 3:53 pm

        Luxon wants us to beef up defense spending. What's the bet the money will go to buy a used nuclear sub from the US? Mate's rates, just like Morrison in Oz agreed to pay a third of a TRILLION doallrs for their US subs.

        Everyone except Morrieson regretted it from the get go.

        • SPC 3.1.1.1
          20 February 2025 at 3:58 pm

          A 2% GDP defence spending target is silly. Some years it will be more, some years less – based on whatever capital spending is going on.

          • aj 3.1.1.1.1
            20 February 2025 at 4:34 pm

            Where does an extra 80 billion pounds for defense come from?

            Richard Murphy discusses this from the UK perspective, but the same choices would confront NZ

            https://youtu.be/a2GPhQI-_9E?si=2yt2NUClnJCBQt_2

          • Bearded Git 3.1.1.1.2
            20 February 2025 at 9:33 pm

            With respect SPC capital spending is depreciated over several years for accounting purposes so that argument doesn't hold.

            • SPC 3.1.1.1.2.1
              21 February 2025 at 12:47 am

              1.Only if the accrual system is used. We were unique in this back 1999-2000

              https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/strategic-studies/documents/strategic-briefing-papers/nzds.pdf

              2.And only if there is functional capacity stasis.

              How is change accounted for?

              And only if the allocation for depreciation is sufficient to match rising cost of the capital replacement.

              We did not replace the fighter wing – did this mean money was set aside for another purpose?

              Where did the money for all those LAVS come from?

              When did this system apply for the Hercules, we seemed to need to wait a long time to replace them.

              And how does one factor that in with a 2% of GDP spending rate – with what determination of a new functional capacity that spending affords?

              Is low GDP growth a constraint etc …

    • Psycho Milt 3.2
      20 February 2025 at 11:44 am

      NZ's only agreed to commit troops to a peacekeeping force, not a combat force. Mind you, good luck to anyone who imagines they'll get to keep any peace Putin agrees to – it'll be a very temporary one at best. Our govt's mad to commit NZers' lives to that.

      • Scud 3.2.1
        20 February 2025 at 2:07 pm

        It going to be at least a UN Chap7 Peace Enforcement Stabilisation Mission or at a minimum a Chap6 UN Peacekeeping Misson.

        Either way the NZDF/ MoD lack critical mass IRT Equipment which some cases has been sold off too full holes in the Defence Budget. To personal either leaving due piss poor pay & conditions & the Reserve Forces being constantly run down since the 90's even after INTERFET/ Peacekeeping Misson to Timor Leste which was against NZDF MoD advice let alone both major NZ political parties ignoring the Lessons Learnt from the Timor Leste Operations.

        • SPC 3.2.1.1
          20 February 2025 at 2:19 pm

          How can the UN operate a peacekeeping mission, if the peace involves cession of territory via war? Such is in breach of UN rules since 1949.

          • Dennis Frank 3.2.1.1.1
            20 February 2025 at 2:57 pm

            Wouldn't it be nice to live in a world in which the UN operated in accord with UN rules? There's a warp factor inherent in how the world works. It makes people decide in a warped kind of way. This is known as interpretation. When a decision-maker is influenced by the necessity to interpret the rules to suit the powers that be, that person is likely to warp into that stance and interpret the rule accordingly. Human nature keeps all on their toes in consequence…

        • Sanctuary 3.2.1.2
          20 February 2025 at 2:30 pm

          Military pay is not that bad in low wage NZ –

          • Recruits in training usually earn $50,597 a year.
          • Privates usually earn between $61,000 and $70,000.
          • Lance corporals and corporals usually earn between $66,000 and $77,000.
          • Sergeants and staff sergeants usually earn between $80,000 and $106,000.
          • Warrant officers can earn between $101,000 and $120,000.

          Don't know about officers but for young men that money isn't terrible, especially given the job security and the reality that a lot of infantry will lack tertiary education.

          The problem seems to be more in the run down housing stock, poor and obsolescent equipment and a general sense of lacking relevance. I agree the running down of the Territorials, AKA the cut-lunch commandoes AKA SAS (Saturday and Sundays) is a disgrace. Regular force officers seem to hate part time soldiers, possibly because they have a habit of answering back., and consistently under-rate their value – yet the Ukraine's vital early battles were all fought by grizzled old buggers in their fifties and sixties who had done time in the Soviet army and proved vital.

          Personally, I'd like to see a much bigger investment in housing and other benefits, and I'd do a deal with the Aussies to station a well equipped mechanised battalion battlegroup near a big city over there, it would act as both an alliance commitment and it would most likely do wonders for recruitment.

        • Psycho Milt 3.2.1.3
          20 February 2025 at 5:37 pm

          Yeah, I think the govt's being way over-optimistic with this one. Anyone we send over there is toast, peace agreement or not.

    • gsays 3.3
      20 February 2025 at 12:24 pm

      You should have stopped at

      *Not one NZ soldier to go."

      • Subliminal 3.3.1
        20 February 2025 at 4:34 pm

        Absolutely gsays. All these heroic armchair warriors that would probably need a good nap after struggling up the garden path, whippng up rabid hatred of all things Russian and generously offering up the youth of NZ to die in Ukraine.

        Its not as though we aren't already struggling with youth to aged ratios to support these geriatric "warriors" in their dotterage.

        Nato was pretty gungho at the beginning of this conflict on the prospects of marching into Russia on the backs of the Ukrainian army and dividing the spoils amongst themselves. Anyone pointing out the absolute ludicrous nature of confronting Russia in their back yard or the enormous losses being suffered by Ukraine was just sneered at.

        It seems a long time ago now that peace was offered, with Russia only expecting to keep Crimea but oh no…Boris stepped in and back to slaughter it was…

        And then of course, to suggest that the real party unable to keep to agreements, amply demonstrated by the west walking away from the UN Security Council sponsored Minsk Accords…well the apoplexy and trauma.

        Russia is not in this for some pathetic property deal. The issues were first raised at the 2007 Munich conference. They have been stated many times. Zelensky was elected on a mandate to negotiate peace with Russia. He came close a couple times but was always turned from this by ultimatums from Western powers.

        Russia will win this war on its terms now. Trump can flounder around and pretend to be in control but hes not and he is trying to extricate himself before it becomes too obvious how badly the west has conducted itself in this whole sorry saga

        • aj 3.3.1.1
          20 February 2025 at 5:13 pm

          This writer eloquently summarises the current situation, partially quoted below.

          European political elites, with only a few exceptions, were totally invested in a victory and never considered discussing peace. Totally delusional, and now find themselves with nowhere to go.

          https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1892074921679069555.html

          I see many people commenting that the US is trying to pull a reverse Kissinger, wooing Russia away from China, completely missing the obvious truth right before their eyes: if there's a split happening, it's a Euro-US split.

          That's a common flaw in human nature, we're often incapable to conceive that the status quo we've lived with our entire lives has fundamentally changed. We look to patterns from the past, seek to refight the previous war; it's far easier and more comforting to believe you're still in the box even when the box has disappeared.

          Russia isn't going to split again from China, there is not a single chance in hell, it learned that lesson the hard way… Putin, as a famously keen student of history, understands how much damage that did.

          And why would he? What benefit would Russia possibly derive from this? The world has changed: as we've seen during the Ukraine war the West unleashed its entire economic arsenal against Russia, only to demonstrate its own impotence. Russia last year was Europe's fastest-growing economy even when completely cut off from Western markets. So if the West's maximum pressure amounts to so little, its maximum friendship isn't worth much more

          • Psycho Milt 3.3.1.1.1
            20 February 2025 at 5:45 pm

            Who would have guessed that Europe's last remaining empire would not only remain popular among sections of the international left but have their support for attempting to restore imperial possessions it had earlier lost? It's like some weird left-wing conservativism.

            • gsays 3.3.1.1.1.1
              20 February 2025 at 5:57 pm

              Yep and somehow sending Kiwi soldiers off to a battlefield on the other side of the world is left as. /sarc

            • Populuxe 3.3.1.1.1.2
              21 February 2025 at 1:12 pm

              You will have the pleasure of watching their heads explode now that Trump is aligning with Putin.

        • Bearded Git 3.3.1.2
          20 February 2025 at 9:43 pm

          Touch of ageism there sublim….but you are right about NATO. Napoleon and Hitler could attest to this.

          It has long been obvious that a peace giving Russia large chunks of Ukraine along current battle lines would eventuate.

          Biden should have recognised this and negotiated it. Now we are stuck with the idiot "negotiating" it.

          • Populuxe 3.3.1.2.1
            21 February 2025 at 12:26 pm

            It's very easy to say things like that when it's not your country.
            Do you think, for example, that most Australians would have supported the Brisbane Line in WW2?

        • Scud 3.3.1.3
          20 February 2025 at 9:57 pm

          Well I've done more than my far share operations of 20 odd yrs spanning 2 countries.

          If I wasn't too bursted up, I would've returned to the colours for one more time for 🇺🇦 with either the ex RAF Regt guys or the ex Commonwealth Tankies as a Recon Scout/ Assualt Trooper in old money.

          So I donated money via the St Javelin site.

          As I'm sick and tired of dumb politicians & assholes like Tsar Poots invading countries violation of the UN Charter.

        • SPC 3.3.1.4
          21 February 2025 at 12:25 am

          Nato was pretty gungho at the beginning of this conflict on the prospects of marching into Russia on the backs of the Ukrainian army and dividing the spoils amongst themselves.

          That is no more true than what Trump writes.

          It seems a long time ago now that peace was offered, with Russia only expecting to keep Crimea

          How do you know that? Putin never indicated Russia would withdraw from the Donbass.

          Russia is not in this for some pathetic property deal. The issues were first raised at the 2007 Munich conference.

          https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/18/putin-speech-wake-up-call-post-cold-war-order-liberal-2007-00009918

          A bit of an irony. Given the recent meeting in Munich. The Americans saying they are not really committed to Europe?

          https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx242lw21jwo

    • Res Publica 3.4
      20 February 2025 at 7:32 pm

      New Zealand’s security policy was built on the assumption of a predictable global order where major conflicts were deterred. That assumption no longer holds. While New Zealand doesn’t need to become a military power, it must rethink its strategic positioning—working with like-minded partners to counterbalance regional hegemony and ensuring that its security isn’t reliant on a U.S. that now operates like a global protection racket.

      It doesnt mean we have to worry about war with the US. But Trump's unilateral withdrawl from the international rules based order will mo doubt empower all sorts of bad actors and wannabe superpowers to chance their arm at imposing regional hegemony safe in the knowledge the Republicans will look the other way as long as they get their cut.

    • Anne 3.5
      20 February 2025 at 8:15 pm

      Thanks Sanctuary @ 3. Expressed better than I can.

      "…if Zelensky was the dictator Trump accuses him of, he'd be Trump's best buddy."

      A bit rich coming from someone we know is eying up the possibility of cancelling the next presidential election so he can continue to be the world's No. 1 dictator until he drops dead.

  4. Darien Fenton 4
    20 February 2025 at 5:24 pm

    So some saying here Trump is right? Or am I misreading your comments? I seem to recall Russia invaded Ukraine, not the other way around.

  5. Mike the Lefty 5
    20 February 2025 at 6:51 pm

    Trump reminds me of a picture of Napoleon and his generals pouring over a map of Europe planning how to divide it up.

  6. tWig 6
    20 February 2025 at 10:22 pm

    Owen Jones in The Guardian points out the US's feet of clay Let’s be clear – the US never had moral supremacy. With Trump, it’s not even pretending any more.

    In the Cold War: ‘Indeed, the US and the Soviet Union presented their grand conflict, however misleadingly, as a clash of two universalist philosophies, both of which promised the liberation of all humanity: “freedom and democracy” on the one hand, and the end of capitalism and colonialism in favour of equality on the other.’

    • aj 6.1
      21 February 2025 at 7:50 am

      And that article hammers home why NZ should pursue an independent foreign policy. If the choice is the lesser of two evils, you are still associating with evil.

      • Res Publica 6.1.1
        21 February 2025 at 11:41 am

        It depends on what you mean by independent.

        Because as a small state in the middle of geopolitical nowhere, there's a very strong argument that we don't actually have many (if any) meaningful foreign policy choices. And it is highly unlikely we will be able to have a truly independent foreign policy unconstrained by allies, or the international rules we are signed up to.

        In the real world, we have to pick from a menu of sometimes uncomfortable and unpalatable choices. We can't just stick our fingers in our ears and decide we don't like them.

        Kiwipolitico did a really insightful and incisive article on the myth of our foreign policy independence back in 2022

        • Populuxe 6.1.1.1
          21 February 2025 at 12:31 pm

          Essentially we only have one viable policy and it's largely dictated by our relationship with Australia. They are the only ally we can rely on because any attack on us is an immediate threat to them and vice versa. So by default, where Australia goes, we go, even if only as an afterthought.

        • Drowsy M. Kram 6.1.1.2
          21 February 2025 at 12:36 pm

          In a nutshell: although international norms violations are common and conflict becomes the default systems regulator during periods of international transition and systemic realignment, the multipolar constellation that emerges in its wake is characterised by balancing as both a focus and a feature. That demands flexibility and agility on the part of great powers but also gives diplomatic space and opportunity to smaller powers with such traits.

          In this context a flexible and agile foreign policy approach allows a small State such as NZ considerable room for maneuver, may magnify its voice regarding specific areas of concern (such as climate change, environmental security, migration and the general subject of human rights, including indigenous and gender rights) and therefore give it increased influence disproportionate to its size and geopolitical significance (in other words, allow it to genuinely “punch above its weight”).

          Interesting 15 Nov 2022 article by Pablo – thanks. The Rt Hon Winston Peters is our (“flexible and agile“?) Minister of Foreign Affairs, and deputy PM. When the current period of "international transition and systemic realignment" ends (sooner or later, one way or another), then I hope Aotearoa New Zealand will still have genuine choices about whether or not to do this sort of thing.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_nuclear-free_zone

          More from Pablo at Kiwipolitico:

          A presidential crypto pump-and-dump [18 Feb 2025]
          Does it not occur to anyone that the moral character of all of these people [Trump, Musk and Milei] playing on the public trust is the same – that they are a kinship of immoral miscreant sociopaths? In NZ, is not David Seymour the same?

          • Res Publica 6.1.1.2.1
            21 February 2025 at 1:49 pm

            When the current period of "international transition and systemic realignment" ends (sooner or later, one way or another), then I hope Aotearoa New Zealand will still have genuine choices about whether or not to do this sort of thing.

            We can probably still stay officially nuclear free. Whether our allies (or potential enemies) will respect that decision and not sneak nuclear armed or powered submarines through our territorial waters is a different question.

            Chances are the future global geopolitical landscape will be multipolar. Which is great if you don't like hegemonies. But tertible if you're looking for ongoing stability.

            Power abhors 3rd,4th,and 5th wheels just as much as it does a vacuum.

            • Dennis Frank 6.1.1.2.1.1
              21 February 2025 at 2:37 pm

              Chances are the future global geopolitical landscape will be multipolar.

              I've asserted that thesis several times onsite here in recent years, but we can go further: global rule is via a triad currently if you focus only on USA/China/Russia, but a tetrad if you include the UK and a pentad if you include EU.

              Looks like Starmer is doing a loose USA solidarity stance and Europe is contemplating some uncertainty around NATO. Both Ukraine & Gaza are multidimensional nexii (just count the nations involved). Theory remains undeveloped in geopolitics but good old kiwi diy will quickly give you inherent indeterminacy plus degrees of freedom defined by the extent of collaboration between the key players in each game.

        • SPC 6.1.1.3
          21 February 2025 at 12:51 pm

          That of Kiwipolitico reminds me of a SC submission I once made (forgot to spell-check).

  7. tWig 7
    21 February 2025 at 11:31 am

    For those with the time on their hands, scroll through the comments under this Guardian article on German defense spending and the upcoming election there.

    A well-informed crowd with multiple views on what european policy should be, plenty of defense facts, and fascinating discussions, once you get past the immigration stuff. It must reflect the conversations that informed europeans must be having underneath the heads of state urgent meetings.

  8. tWig 8
    21 February 2025 at 11:47 am

    And also this excellent piece by the French Foreign Minister.

    'The key global issue is not the clash of north and south: it’s who supports international law and who doesn’t'.

  9. SPC 9
    21 February 2025 at 1:28 pm

    The most corrupt democratic nation state government in history?

    It appears that the administration of POTUS 47 is trying to carve out a share of Ukraine for itself. If China had done this it would have served as a warning about taking Chinese loans.

    But the aid to Ukraine was never supplied as debt. And a lot of the aid came from Europe, not the USA.

    U.S. President Donald Trump's administration reportedly seeks a 50% interest in Ukraine's natural resources, including critical minerals, oil, and gas, and stakes in ports and other critical infrastructure through a joint investment fund.

    Waltz said Ukraine's rejection of the deal and resistance to Trump's approach to peace talks is "completely unacceptable."

    https://kyivindependent.com/ukraine-needs-to-tone-down-sign-us-minerals-deal-waltz-says/

    https://kyivindependent.com/us-objects-to-russian-aggression-language-in-g7-statement-straining-unity-on-ukraine-ft-reports/

    • Dennis Frank 9.1
      21 February 2025 at 2:43 pm

      It may seem corrupt but it's really just traditional exploitation as great powers have always done it. Think serfs on the lord's estate a millennium back, paying a tithe determined by the lord as local controller of the system, to remain alive.

      What T could do is suggest Z read up on patronage. "Yeah, I got no problem with patronising you, it's just a question of you agreeing the cost, huh?"

      • SPC 9.1.1
        21 February 2025 at 4:03 pm

        Not seen in the democratic era. Not once.

        The UNSC is supposed to consist of those who defend the security of nation states. Now one member is seeking to annex land and another seeks to profit from both enabling it and offering conditional “protection” at the same time.

        • Dennis Frank 9.1.1.1
          21 February 2025 at 4:36 pm

          Supposition often doesn't work. In turbulent times facades are likely to get washed away. UN conventions can be taken serious when states conform, but any unconventional state leader may forge a novel path into the future. If other states at the top level collaborate with T in the negotiations, he's likely to do it…

  10. tWig 10
    21 February 2025 at 8:44 pm

    Call to resist Trump from JB Pritziger, Governor of Illinois.

    After comparing Trump's anti-immigrant platform with that of Hitler's anti-Jew blaming that drew in support from struggling Germans looking for someone to blame, he pointed out.

    “If you think I’m overreacting and sounding the alarm too soon, consider this,” he told lawmakers. “It took the Nazis one month, three weeks, two days, eight hours and 40 minutes to dismantle a constitutional republic. All I’m saying is when the five-alarm fire starts to burn, every good person better be ready to man a post with a bucket of water if you want to stop it from raging out of control.”

    He's Jewish.

  11. aj 11
    22 February 2025 at 2:25 pm

    This is part of an interesting exchange between the redoubtable Niall Ferguson and VP Vance on X recently. It highlights some of the strongly held points of view from all sides in this thread above, and being debated with the RW in the USA.

    As the discussion became disjointed in it's presentation on X (and some readers won't go to X) I've quoted three individual posts.

    Niall Ferguson
    This will not stand. This will not stand, this aggression against Kuwait."–George H.W. Bush on August 5, 1990. Full quote from Jon Meacham's biography. Future history students will be asked why this stopped being the reaction of a Republican president to the invasion of a sovereign state by a dictator.

    VP Vance
    This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.

    For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.

    And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?

    Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.

    President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:

    Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.

    Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.

    Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.

    Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.

    Number five, the conflict has placed–and continues to place–stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.

    Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.

    That interest–not moralisms or historical illiteracy–will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come.

    And thank God for that.

    Niall Ferguson
    Well, thank God also for free and open debate.

    Having visited Ukraine every year but one since 2011, I think I have an informed and realistic view. I repeatedly criticized the Biden administration for its failure to deter Putin in 2021 and failure to end the war while Ukraine still had some leverage.
    I have said more than once in the past three years that the war would not have happened if President Trump had been reelected in 2020.

    I supported his campaign for reelection last year, consistently predicted his and your victory, and welcomed the “vibe shift” that victory represented. I have also supported the President’s previous calls to negotiate peace between Russia and Ukraine.
    So I am not sure I really qualify as a globalist.
    In fact, I agree with all five of the points you make. Indeed, I praised your Munich speech.

    But I simply cannot understand the logic of beginning a negotiation this difficult by conceding so many crucial points to Russia. As I understand it, before negotiations have even begun, NATO membership for Ukraine has been taken off the table and the loss of 20% of its territory has in effect been conceded. Correct me if I am wrong.

    I have read also (though it may not be true) that “American officials are suggesting a different sort of peacekeeping force, including non-European countries such as Brazil or China, that would sit along an eventual ceasefire line as a sort of buffer.” China? Seriously?

    On Wednesday, President Trump accused Ukraine of having “started it,” meaning the war. He also cast doubt on the legitimacy of President Zelensky’s government.

    It is not “moralistic garbage” but a hard and realistic lesson of history that wars are easy to start and hard to end.
    As for “historical illiteracy,” here are some facts.

    It took 1 year, 10 months, 25 days for Woodrow Wilson to negotiate an end to World War I (it helped that the Allies won);

    2 years, 18 days to negotiate an end to the Korean War;

    3 years, 5 months, 24 days to negotiate an end to the Vietnam War;

    And 5 years, 5 months, 1 day to negotiate peace between Israel and Egypt.

    I earnestly hope that the Trump administration can negotiate an end to this war. But if we end up with a peace that dooms Ukraine first to partition and then to some future invasion, it will be a sorry outcome.
    To repeat, I agreed with most of your criticisms of Europe at Munich. I would add that the Europeans have talked for “strategic autonomy” for too long without making a serious attempt to achieve it. But you and President Trump campaigned last year with a slogan that dates back even further than George H.W. Bush’s words that I quoted. That phrase was “peace through strength.”

    I wish you luck.

    https://x.com/jdvance
    https://x.com/nfergus/status/1892589236957622709

  12. SPC 12
    23 February 2025 at 4:45 pm

    The Lord Cromwell protected by SCOTUS leadership of the GOP Rump Congress wants $500B of rare earth minerals for the $60B of aid – weapons they bought off USA companies (workers jobs and corporate profits all taxed locally).

    And for Ukraine to cede territory, the US to end sanctions on Russia and all claims Russia started the war.

    This Cromwell is no ally of the free world.

    He wants to end anything rules based.

    An age of lawlessness and piracy – that is all he knows about exercising power.