- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

Ukraine agrees US minerals deal after Washington drops toughest demands
Posted on 2/25/25 at 12:51 pm
Posted on 2/25/25 at 12:51 pm
quote:
Kyiv has agreed terms with Washington on a minerals deal that Ukrainian officials hope will improve relations with the Trump administration and pave the way for a long-term US security commitment.
Ukrainian officials say Kyiv is now ready to sign the agreement on jointly developing its mineral resources, including oil and gas, after the US dropped demands for a right to $500bn in potential revenue from exploiting the resources.
quote:
The final version of the agreement, dated February 24 and seen by the FT, would establish a fund into which Ukraine would contribute 50 per cent of proceeds from the “future monetisation” of state-owned mineral resources, including oil and gas, and associated logistics. The fund would invest in projects in Ukraine.
It excludes mineral resources that already contribute to Ukrainian government coffers, meaning it would not cover the existing activities of Naftogaz or Ukrnafta, Ukraine’s largest gas and oil producers.
However, the agreement omits any reference to US security guarantees which Kyiv had originally insisted on in return for agreeing to the deal. It also leaves crucial questions such as the size of the US stake in the fund and the terms of “joint ownership” deals to be hashed out in follow-up agreements.
After three years in which the US was Kyiv’s primary military aid donor, Trump has overturned Washington’s policy by opening bilateral talks with Russia, without any European allies or Ukraine at the table.
LINK
Posted on 2/25/25 at 12:59 pm to The Egg
Trump is going to end the war and get mineral rights to pay back the billions we sent? Nice.
Harris would've extended the war in perpetuity and told Ukraine not to worry about paying us back. Democracy is worth it.
Harris would've extended the war in perpetuity and told Ukraine not to worry about paying us back. Democracy is worth it.
Posted on 2/25/25 at 1:04 pm to The Egg
Wait a minute. I thought we were basically joining forces with Russia to destroy Ukraine (and Europe in short order). Why would we make such a deal?
Posted on 2/25/25 at 1:06 pm to CatholicLSUDude
I mean being that the deal doesn't give Ukraine any security guarantees I'm not sure why they would agree to it.
Posted on 2/25/25 at 1:11 pm to The Egg
quote:
, after the US dropped demands for a right to $500bn in potential revenue from exploiting the resources.
Huh? Why did we drop this?
Posted on 2/25/25 at 1:12 pm to The Egg
quote:
Ukrainian officials say Kyiv is now ready to sign the agreement on jointly developing its mineral resources, including oil and gas, after the US dropped demands for a right to $500bn in potential revenue from exploiting the resources.
quote:
The final version of the agreement, dated February 24 and seen by the FT, would establish a fund into which Ukraine would contribute 50 per cent of proceeds from the “future monetisation” of state-owned mineral resources, including oil and gas, and associated logistics. The fund would invest in projects in Ukraine.
So, what claim to those mineral rights and any revenue derived from them does this deal give to the US? This isn't very clear in that regard.
Posted on 2/25/25 at 1:12 pm to LARancher1991
quote:
I mean being that the deal doesn't give Ukraine any security guarantees I'm not sure why they would agree to it.
It depends on what the deal actually has Ukraine paying us/how we benefit. I.E. if it doesn’t hurt Ukraine that much (like $500 Billion would) then it’s probably a smart idea to stroke trumps ego for the future.
quote:
So, what claim to those mineral rights and any revenue derived from them does this deal give to the US? This isn't very clear in that regard.
This is probably why Ukraine is willing to sign it, as it sounds much less one sided now. I’m sure the full terms will come out as soon as it’s signed.
This post was edited on 2/25/25 at 1:16 pm
Posted on 2/25/25 at 1:19 pm to LegendInMyMind
That’s what I’m wondering. If the fund is to invest in Ukraine projects, how does that pay us back for the billions Biden already gifted away?
Posted on 2/25/25 at 1:19 pm to LARancher1991
quote:
I mean being that the deal doesn't give Ukraine any security guarantees I'm not sure why they would agree to it.
If the US is making billions in mineral rights from Ukraine, that is their security guarantee. We aren’t going to just give that up in the future.
Posted on 2/25/25 at 1:20 pm to BamaTiger00
quote:
That’s what I’m wondering. If the fund is to invest in Ukraine projects, how does that pay us back for the billions Biden already gifted away?
That's the question.
Posted on 2/25/25 at 1:22 pm to DiamondDog
quote:
Huh? Why did we drop this?
I'm guessing in return for not paying to secure them or rebuild them? I haven't read it yet, though... just a guess.
Posted on 2/25/25 at 1:25 pm to The Egg
Where's the minerals Zelensky?
Posted on 2/25/25 at 1:26 pm to LARancher1991
quote:
I mean being that the deal doesn't give Ukraine any security guarantees I'm not sure why they would agree to it.
They don't have a choice. They're being actively invaded. They're grasping at straws because they don't want to lose their country.
Posted on 2/25/25 at 1:29 pm to The Egg
Is this winning?
I think it is. 
Posted on 2/25/25 at 1:38 pm to suavecito80
quote:
Is this winning? I think it is.
So far all we know is the deal has Ukraine investing in a fun that in turn invests in Ukraine. (Compared to past deals that had Ukraine paying the US $500 Billion)
Unclear how the US has won at this point.
This post was edited on 2/25/25 at 1:39 pm
Posted on 2/25/25 at 1:46 pm to LARancher1991
quote:
I mean being that the deal doesn't give Ukraine any security guarantees I'm not sure why they would agree to it.
With that huge of concession from their side and the potential for profits from the private sector, i imaging public funded security forces will be on site. This will be billed as a way to protect from Russia, but will more likely be used to make sure Ukraine doesnt renege and we are able to extract out those resources. The public sector needs to be paid back for the war at the same time the private sector makes profits.
This was always a war for resources and we have now economically partitioned Ukraine. At the end of this the Ukrainian common people were always going to pay the biggest cost, and the private businesses and investors who go in after were always going to benefit the most. Such is war.
Posted on 2/25/25 at 1:47 pm to The Egg
quote:
long-term US security commitment.
Please no.
Posted on 2/25/25 at 1:51 pm to The Egg
So what exactly are we getting out of this?
Posted on 2/25/25 at 1:53 pm to LARancher1991
quote:
I'm not sure why they would agree to it.
quote:
If we can attract American investors to develop natural resources, it will be highly beneficial for the country's economy.
"We will get technologies that our mining industry lacks so much," Ms Suprun explained. "We will get capital. That means more jobs, tax payments. We'll receive revenue from the development of mineral deposits."
Posted on 2/25/25 at 1:54 pm to Clyde Tipton
quote:
Trump is going to end the war and get mineral rights to pay back the billions we sent? Nice.
Regrettably, I think Russia is likely to end up with most of their worthwhile mineral resources if they keep most of their territorial gains. Could signal that the barter between Trump and Putin was partly over dividing the valuable resources? Would be a very stupid deal if you let Russia end up with ~90% of their Lithium, so I can't imagine the state department would be that dense.
This post was edited on 2/25/25 at 1:55 pm
Popular
Back to top

10









