- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- 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
Did Zelensky already sign mineral rights deal with UK
Posted on 3/2/25 at 9:06 pm
Posted on 3/2/25 at 9:06 pm
Starting to gain steam. If so, this is about as bad as it gets.
13
Posted on 3/2/25 at 9:09 pm to SlayTime
I think Trump was just aiming to reimburse the US for the billions sent to Ukraine. So what if someone else signs it? It will have the same purpose.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 9:09 pm to SlayTime
quote:
Did Zelensky already sign mineral rights deal with UK
Doubtful but if so, it’s going to be interesting watching Temu Saddam’s apologists trying to defend their hero giving away something this valuable.
This post was edited on 3/2/25 at 9:10 pm
Posted on 3/2/25 at 9:20 pm to SlayTime
Would be very dumb of Z and very good for us
Posted on 3/2/25 at 9:35 pm to SlayTime
Here is a summary from Grok
Thanks for the link! The video you shared is titled "Scott Ritter: Ukraine’s LAST GASP as Putin Closes In, West Faces Total Defeat," uploaded by Danny Deraney on February 15, 2025. It’s an hour and 42 minutes long, and since you don’t have time to sift through it, I’ve done some digging to see if it connects to the Ukraine-UK mineral rights question.
Based on a transcript scan and related chatter, Scott Ritter—a former UN weapons inspector—spends this interview discussing Ukraine’s military and strategic situation, Russia’s advances, and Western involvement. Around the timestamp you flagged (13:02, or 782 seconds), he’s mid-discussion about Ukraine’s collapsing frontline and the West’s miscalculations, not specifically mineral rights. However, later in the video—roughly around the 45:00 mark—he touches on economic motivations, mentioning how Western powers, including the UK, might be eyeing Ukraine’s resources as part of their long-term stakes. He doesn’t explicitly say “mineral rights were signed over to the UK on January 16, 2025,” but he implies that deals like the UK’s “100-year partnership” (which we know was announced that month) could be less about altruism and more about securing economic leverage, including access to Ukraine’s critical minerals.
Posts on X and some web commentary align with this angle, claiming the UK deal involves mineral rights and port control, though hard evidence remains thin. The UK government’s official line sticks to vague terms like “partnership” and “investment,” with £36 million tied to energy and minerals, but no public contract spells out ownership. Ritter’s take seems to lean on this speculation, framing it as part of a broader Western scramble to lock in Ukraine’s assets before Russia’s gains render them moot.
So, does the video confirm the mineral rights transfer? Not directly—it’s more Ritter riffing on geopolitics with a cynical nod to resource grabs. If it’s stirring media buzz, it could be amplifying those X posts suggesting a deeper deal, but it’s light on specifics. Happy to dig further if you’ve got a hunch about what else might be buried in there—what’s your next move?
Thanks for the link! The video you shared is titled "Scott Ritter: Ukraine’s LAST GASP as Putin Closes In, West Faces Total Defeat," uploaded by Danny Deraney on February 15, 2025. It’s an hour and 42 minutes long, and since you don’t have time to sift through it, I’ve done some digging to see if it connects to the Ukraine-UK mineral rights question.
Based on a transcript scan and related chatter, Scott Ritter—a former UN weapons inspector—spends this interview discussing Ukraine’s military and strategic situation, Russia’s advances, and Western involvement. Around the timestamp you flagged (13:02, or 782 seconds), he’s mid-discussion about Ukraine’s collapsing frontline and the West’s miscalculations, not specifically mineral rights. However, later in the video—roughly around the 45:00 mark—he touches on economic motivations, mentioning how Western powers, including the UK, might be eyeing Ukraine’s resources as part of their long-term stakes. He doesn’t explicitly say “mineral rights were signed over to the UK on January 16, 2025,” but he implies that deals like the UK’s “100-year partnership” (which we know was announced that month) could be less about altruism and more about securing economic leverage, including access to Ukraine’s critical minerals.
Posts on X and some web commentary align with this angle, claiming the UK deal involves mineral rights and port control, though hard evidence remains thin. The UK government’s official line sticks to vague terms like “partnership” and “investment,” with £36 million tied to energy and minerals, but no public contract spells out ownership. Ritter’s take seems to lean on this speculation, framing it as part of a broader Western scramble to lock in Ukraine’s assets before Russia’s gains render them moot.
So, does the video confirm the mineral rights transfer? Not directly—it’s more Ritter riffing on geopolitics with a cynical nod to resource grabs. If it’s stirring media buzz, it could be amplifying those X posts suggesting a deeper deal, but it’s light on specifics. Happy to dig further if you’ve got a hunch about what else might be buried in there—what’s your next move?
Posted on 3/2/25 at 10:44 pm to SlayTime
Zelenskyy is a coke whore. They are prone to unpredictable behavior.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 11:35 pm to SlayTime
If true, then Trump overplayed his hand. There's just no way to spin this.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 11:56 pm to Texas Weazel
quote:
If true, then Trump overplayed his hand. There's just no way to spin this.
That deal is not something we should be pursuing. The more intertwined we become with Ukraine the more likely it is we will be drawn into direct conflict with Russia. That deal is only moderately less risky than having our troops stationed in Ukraine as peacekeepers.
And I am not spinning at all. I don’t give a shite about Ukraine’s minerals. Do not do anything that heightens the risk of losing American lives in that country.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 12:07 am to Texas Weazel
quote:
If true, then Trump overplayed his hand. There's just no way to spin this.
That’s the worst take I’ve heard on this so far.
If the Brits signed a deal with Z already why the F would Trump have given him more money or a defense promise?
How does that benefit America?
Regardless of the minerals, the fact that the midget came into the White House and called the VP a bitch after possibly signing a secret deal behind Trumps back 100% validates DJT kicking his arse back to the EU.
This post was edited on 3/3/25 at 12:08 am
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:17 am to tide06
if Z signed a deal with the UK knowing he owes the US a ton of $$$$$... then he (Z) will have a bigger problem then Putin..I pray he was that stupid..he's done if thats the case
This post was edited on 3/3/25 at 2:23 am
Posted on 3/3/25 at 2:54 am to Texas Weazel
We can always make a deal with Russia, who saya they have more rare earth minerals then Ukraine.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 4:28 am to Cuthbert13
Krainer has been talking about this for a few weeks / maybe a month.
England been spending money they don't have yet.
England been spending money they don't have yet.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 4:48 am to SlayTime
Fact is raw earth is not very hard to find. We do not need Ukraines raw earth. It would have been better than nothing but it’s just as well that we do not get further involved in the conflict.
Let Russia mine it and we can buy it from them.
Let Russia mine it and we can buy it from them.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 4:50 am to Texas Weazel
Right now, we got nothing for our money. How do you get worse than nothing?
Please tell me how Trump could have overplayed his hand?
If that’s the way Z wants to go, we have zero reason to help further which is why Trump was put into office anyway.
Please tell me how Trump could have overplayed his hand?
If that’s the way Z wants to go, we have zero reason to help further which is why Trump was put into office anyway.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 5:07 am to Junky
Trump can't help what another administration paid Ukraine.
What he can do is either give them money in return for mineral rights or cut them off.
At this point it looks like Zelensky listened to the democrats and went elsewhere . At this point, we won't be sending checks to them anymore. It's pure business.
What he can do is either give them money in return for mineral rights or cut them off.
At this point it looks like Zelensky listened to the democrats and went elsewhere . At this point, we won't be sending checks to them anymore. It's pure business.
This post was edited on 3/3/25 at 5:11 am
Posted on 3/3/25 at 5:35 am to SlayTime
Cool. We’ll sign one with Russia then
Posted on 3/3/25 at 5:39 am to SlayTime
Congo deal is better anyway.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 8:44 am to TrueTiger
Posted on 3/3/25 at 8:48 am to Texas Weazel
quote:
If true, then Trump overplayed his hand. There's just no way to spin this.
Who helped you log onto the Internet? This is arguably the most arse backwards take on geopolitical history.
Posted on 3/3/25 at 8:49 am to texas tortilla
A guy in a Tshirt got in an argument with two guys wearing makeup
Not on Bourbon Street but in the Oval Office.
Why can't Trump admit Putin is a dictator?
Like Bannon said Vlad has something on him
Not on Bourbon Street but in the Oval Office.
Why can't Trump admit Putin is a dictator?
Like Bannon said Vlad has something on him
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News