this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2025
63 points (97.0% liked)
Ukraine
9795 readers
315 users here now
News and discussion related to Ukraine
Community Rules
πΊπ¦ Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.
π»π€’No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
π₯Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title
π·Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human involved must be flagged NSFW
β Server Rules
- Remember the human! (no harassment, threats, etc.)
- No racism or other discrimination
- No Nazis, QAnon or similar
- No porn
- No ads or spam (includes charities)
- No content against Finnish law
π³ Defense Aid π₯
π³ Humanitarian Aid βοΈβοΈ
πͺ Volunteer with the International Legionnaires
See also:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Zelenskyy has no reason to care about domestic politics in the US. It's not his job to produce domestic change in the US.
Any kind of arrangement that the US makes with Ukraine that aligns future US interests with Ukraine's future is probably a good move from Ukraine's standpoint, at least in the short term, for Ukraine. If there's no Ukraine down the line, then there's nothing the US gets. If you're in the middle of an existential war, it is a good move to borrow money from other countries, since now they have a considerable interest in your future well-being.
A lot of what Trump does is actually political theater for his domestic political base, with a lot of rather misleading bark and little bite. I find it very distasteful, but often what he's doing is to take an action that sounds very substantial, and then amounts to rather little, like his claims during Term 1 that he would "tear up" NAFTA that mostly came down to renaming it and some small tweaks, or Term 2 having his (highly objectionable, threatened) global tariffs increasingly look like they're turning into negotiating trade agreements. Trump has thrown around enormous dollar values that have little to do with the value of any kind of proven mineral reserves in Ukraine, and I've read a bit of expert commentary pointing out that it's absolutely unclear where he's gotten any kind of valuation that looks anything like the large numbers he's mentioned. However, it's a pretty good bet that his base has no idea what the value of anything in Ukraine is, so he can go back to them and say that he's just made a huge financial gain for the US in Ukraine. If you've paid much attention to how he runs domestic politics, a lot of what he does involves making highly-misleading statements to people in the US who are not terribly-well-educated to gain their support for policies that often don't wind up looking a whole lot like the impression that he's giving them. I'm not going to excuse that. I find it abhorrently dishonest, personally. But it does rather suggest taking a rather large grain of salt on a lot of statements that Trump makes.
Assuming that any such deal actually happens, and depending upon how this is structured, future administrations that are not Trump may have the option to just terminate any agreement and obligations. I'm very dubious that even the majority of the Republican Party is concerned about this, much less the Democrats.
Ukraine could probably find various ways to terminate it as well, de jure or de facto
they're a sovereign state, which creates a lot of room for pulling levers. For example, maybe they impose a tax on the mineral extraction industry that just happens to eat up all the profit it makes or something like that. What really matters, I think, is what expectations would be down the line
does the US actually expect some kind of payment? It's not something that would come up for some time, not until after the war.
From what limited attention I've been paying, I believe that part of the proposed arrangement involved the US committing capital. Depending upon the terms of that and any extraction, it could potentially amount to effectively transferring wealth from the US to Ukraine.
What Trump was grousing about
and I have no idea if that's his real concern or not
is that past US aid was in the form of a grant, whereas a large portion of the EU aid to Ukraine was a loan, where Ukraine needs to pay it back, and that it's a poor arrangement for the US to be gifting and the EU just lending. Now, Trump's also glossing over the fact that the EU loans are on reasonably-favorable terms. He's not mentioning that last I checked, the EU was ahead in total aid. And he's not mentioning that you could probably challenge the dollar value of some of the US (well, and EU) aid in military form, since some of the military hardware was designed to fight Soviet hardware and would probably have limited use elsewhere. But he does have a point. I wasn't very enthusiastic about the EU offering loans rather than grants when that went through
I mean, Ukraine's in a pretty tight place
but I wasn't out calling the EU extortionate either.
Now, I personally don't think that Trump's ask is justified, especially after the fact. I've got no interest in having us ask for some sort of mineral rights in Ukraine. But I think that there's a fair bit of context to take into account.
If an agreement is signed and made public, then I'm sure that there will be legal and economic analysis and we can see what it actually amounts to. My own take is that I'd rather not have the US involved in it in the first place. But I think I'd see what's actually in it before I got too upset.
thanks for the long reply. I hope EU actually sends weapons and puts boots on the ground to assist Ukraine. UK has given some cruise missiles and I'm sure other EU countries will do similar. interesting that the EU financial assistance was loans but as you said these can be cancelled easily. I guess loans are easier to sell to you population. I'd also prefer to not have the US involved now the administration has changed, but disentangling so much bureaucracy is difficult and doesn't happen overnight. I'd suspect Ukraine doesn't want any deals with the US now but needs to keep playing the game until they don't need to. Russia wss never going to play the game anyway, never in good faith. The EU really needs to step up.. but again this takes time to start building up stockpiles and uniforms.. so I can see why the game is being played. I just hope Ukraine wins every hand. thanks π