Meanwhile in Ukraine

[Tonge moor green jacket]

4 hours ago, gonzo said:

Indeed. But we all know how it works.

Folk get enraged about emotive things and ignore billions spaffed elsewhere.

Find it strange that the normally Little Englander mob who crow about us ruling the waves and never backing down to anyone are all of sudden are against helping a fellow country out.

You'll find a fair cross section of folk that don't believe we should have supported Ukraine in the way we have.

Our Lincolnshire Socialist is one of the greatest critics of it.

[Sweep]

Now here's a thought, I don't know how true it is, but it's just been a discussion on the radio. If, and it is a big if (as I doubt Ukraine will go for it) a peace treaty is signed, that means the land that Russia has taken (which is around 15%/20% of Ukraine territory, depending on who you believe) they get to keep - that land has up to $10T of natural resources in it (allegedly) which would mean that Russia, longer term would do very well out of the gig. I'm sure that the US (and the EU) also have their eyes on this as well of course

Could all be bollocks, and I wouldn't know how to check, but we do know Ukraine is very rich in certain resources, which is why Russia want it in the first place

[Sweep]

4 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

You'll find a fair cross section of folk that don't believe we should have supported Ukraine in the way we have.

Our Lincolnshire Socialist is one of the greatest critics of it.

Yep, and even more so in the US, which Trump will play to. I have to admit, if I was some redneck in the deep south of the US, I might wonder why billions and billions of USD are going to Ukraine (especially as most of them won't know where Ukraine, or indeed Russia are)

If, and I don't think we will, we put boots on the ground there (as Starmer suggested), and our forces start to get killed, then you will see the small amount of sympathy still left here wither very quickly. Talking of which, that Thomas Tugendhat was on C4 news last night, and he reckons that the UK army couldn't afford to send more than 5000 troops (and even that was stretching it), which would be embarrassing, as we've driven our numbers down so much. That may be untrue, and he may just be playing politics. Does it sound plausible @royal white?

[Cheese]

16 minutes ago, Sweep said:

Yep, and even more so in the US, which Trump will play to. I have to admit, if I was some redneck in the deep south of the US, I might wonder why billions and billions of USD are going to Ukraine (especially as most of them won't know where Ukraine, or indeed Russia are)

If, and I don't think we will, we put boots on the ground there (as Starmer suggested), and our forces start to get killed, then you will see the small amount of sympathy still left here wither very quickly. Talking of which, that Thomas Tugendhat was on C4 news last night, and he reckons that the UK army couldn't afford to send more than 5000 troops (and even that was stretching it), which would be embarrassing, as we've driven our numbers down so much. That may be untrue, and he may just be playing politics. Does it sound plausible @royal white?

Starmer said he'd be willing to put boots on the ground as part of a peace-keeping force, if that was part of 'the deal'. He's not talking about declaring war on Russia ffs.

[gonzo]

32 minutes ago, Sweep said:

Now here's a thought, I don't know how true it is, but it's just been a discussion on the radio. If, and it is a big if (as I doubt Ukraine will go for it) a peace treaty is signed, that means the land that Russia has taken (which is around 15%/20% of Ukraine territory, depending on who you believe) they get to keep - that land has up to $10T of natural resources in it (allegedly) which would mean that Russia, longer term would do very well out of the gig. I'm sure that the US (and the EU) also have their eyes on this as well of course

Could all be bollocks, and I wouldn't know how to check, but we do know Ukraine is very rich in certain resources, which is why Russia want it in the first place

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/02/17/revealed-trump-confidential-plan-ukraine-stranglehold/?WT.mc_id=e_DM516964&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_Brk_New&utmsource=email&utm_medium=Edi_Brk_New20250217&utm_campaign=DM516964

 

A lot about their resources in here.

[royal white]

14 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Starmer said he'd be willing to put boots on the ground as part of a peace-keeping force, if that was part of 'the deal'. He's not talking about declaring war on Russia ffs.

So how many do you think would be needed for a peace keeping force? 
 

@Sweep it’s impossible for me to say, 20 years of continuous conflicts and peace keeping missions haven’t left us in the best state. I still speak to the odd 1 or 2 lads that are in and they say the marines are in a shit state (kit wise). Saying that it was when I was in. 

[gonzo]

Donald Trump’s demand for a $500bn (£400bn) “payback” from Ukraine goes far beyond US control over the country’s critical minerals. It covers everything from ports and infrastructure to oil and gas, and the larger resource base of the country.

 

The terms of the contract that landed at Volodymyr Zelensky’s office a week ago amount to the US economic colonisation of Ukraine, in legal perpetuity. It implies a burden of reparations that cannot possibly be achieved. The document has caused consternation and panic in Kyiv.

 

The Telegraph has obtained a draft of the pre-decisional contract, marked “Privileged & Confidential’ and dated Feb 7 2025. It states that the US and Ukraine should form a joint investment fund to ensure that “hostile parties to the conflict do not benefit from the reconstruction of Ukraine”.

 

The agreement covers the “economic value associated with resources of Ukraine”, including “mineral resources, oil and gas resources, ports, other infrastructure (as agreed)”, leaving it unclear what else might be encompassed. “This agreement shall be governed by New York law, without regard to conflict of laws principles,” it states.

 

The US will take 50pc of recurring revenues received by Ukraine from extraction of resources, and 50pc of the financial value of “all new licences issued to third parties” for the future monetisation of resources. There will be “a lien on such revenues” in favour of the US. “That clause means ‘pay us first, and then feed your children’,” said one source close to the negotiations.

 

It states that “for all future licences, the US will have a right of first refusal for the purchase of exportable minerals”. Washington will have sovereign immunity and acquire near total control over most of Ukraine’s commodity and resource economy. The fund “shall have the exclusive right to establish the method, selection criteria, terms, and conditions” of all future licences and projects. And so forth, in this vein. It seems to have been written by private lawyers, not the US departments of state or commerce.

 

President Zelensky himself proposed the idea of giving the US a direct stake in Ukraine’s rare earth elements and critical minerals on a visit to Trump Tower in September, hoping to smooth the way for continued arms deliveries.

 

He calculated that it would lead to US companies setting operations on the ground, creating a political tripwire that would deter Vladimir Putin from attacking again.

 

Some mineral basins are near the front line in eastern Ukraine, or in Russian-occupied areas. He has played up the dangers of letting strategic reserves of titanium, tungsten, uranium, graphite and rare earths fall into Russian hands. “If we are talking about a deal, then let’s do a deal, we are only for it,” he said.

 

 

 

He probably did not expect to be confronted with terms normally imposed on aggressor states defeated in war. They are worse than the financial penalties imposed on Germany and Japan after their defeat in 1945. Both countries were ultimately net recipients of funds from the victorious allies.

 

A new Versailles

If this draft were accepted, Trump’s demands would amount to a higher share of Ukrainian GDP than reparations imposed on Germany at the Versailles Treaty, later whittled down at the London Conference in 1921, and by the Dawes Plan in 1924. At the same time, he seems willing to let Russia off the hook entirely

 

 

Donald Trump told Fox News that Ukraine had “essentially agreed” to hand over $500bn. “They have tremendously valuable land in terms of rare earths, in terms of oil and gas, in terms of other things,” he said.

 

He warned that Ukraine would be handed to Putin on a plate if it rejected the terms. “They may make a deal. They may not make a deal. They may be Russian someday, or they may not be Russian someday. But I want this money back,” he said.

 

Trump said the US had spent $300bn on the war so far, adding that it would be “stupid” to hand over any more. In fact the five packages agreed by Congress total $175bn, of which $70bn was spent in the US on weapons production. Some of it is in the form of humanitarian grants, but much of it is lend-lease money that must be repaid.

 

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham suggested at the Munich Security Conference over the weekend that Trump’s demand was a clever ploy to bolster declining popular support for the Ukrainian cause. “He can go to the American people and say, ‘Ukraine is not a burden, it is a benefit,’” he said.

 

Sen Graham told the Europeans to root hard for the idea because it locks Washington into defending a future settlement. “If we sign this minerals agreement, Putin is screwed, because Trump will defend the deal,” he said.

 

Ukrainian officials had to tiptoe though this minefield at the Munich forum, trying to smile gamely and talking up hopes of a resource deal while at the same pleading that the current text breaches Ukrainian law and needs redrafting. Well, indeed.

 

Talk of Ukraine’s resource wealth has become surreal. A figure of $26 trillion is being cast around for combined mineral reserves and hydrocarbons reserves. The sums are make-believe.

 

Ukraine probably has the largest lithium basin in Europe. But lithium prices have crashed by 88pc since the bubble burst in 2022. Large reserves are being discovered all over the world. The McDermitt Caldera in Nevada is thought to be the biggest lithium deposit on the planet with 40m metric tonnes, alone enough to catapult the US ahead of China.

 

The Thacker Pass project will be operational by next year. The value of lithium is in the processing and the downstream industries. Unprocessed rock deposits sitting in Ukraine are all but useless to the US.

It is a similar story for rare earths. They are not rare. Mining companies in the US abandoned the business in the 1990s because profit margins were then too low. The US government was asleep at the wheel and let this happen, waking up to discover that China has acquired a strategic stranglehold over supplies of critical elements needed for hi-tech and advanced weapons. That problem is being resolved.

 

Ukraine has cobalt but most EV batteries now use lithium ferrous phosphate and no longer need cobalt. Furthermore, sodium-ion and sulphur-based batteries will limit the future demand growth for lithium. So will recycling. One could go on. The mineral scarcity story is wildly exaggerated.

As for Ukraine’s shale gas, a) some of the Yuzivska field lies under Putin control, and b) the western Carpathian reserves are in complex geology with high drilling costs, causing Chevron to pull out, just as it did in Poland. Ukraine has more potential as an exporter of electricity to Europe from renewables and nuclear expansion, but that is not what is on Donald Trump’s mind.

 

The second violation of Ukraine

Ukraine cannot possibly meet his $500bn demand in any meaningful timeframe, leaving aside the larger matter of whether it is honourable to treat a victim nation in this fashion after it has held the battle line for the liberal democracies at enormous sacrifice for three years. Who really has a debt to whom, may one ask?

 

My style of dealmaking is quite simple and straightforward,” says Trump in his book The Art of the Deal. “I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I’m after.”

 

In genuine commerce the other side can usually walk away. Trump’s demand is iron-fist coercion by a neo-imperial power against a weaker nation with its back to the wall, and all for a commodity bonanza that exists chiefly in Trump’s head.

 

“Often-times the best deal you make is the deal you don’t make,” said Trump, offering another of his pearls.

 

Zelensky does not have that luxury. He has to pick between the military violation of Ukraine by Putin, and the economic violation of Ukraine by his own ally.

 

 

 

 

 

[Sweep]

14 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Starmer said he'd be willing to put boots on the ground as part of a peace-keeping force, if that was part of 'the deal'. He's not talking about declaring war on Russia ffs.

I know he's not you fucking dick, I didn't say we are going to declare war on Russia. The issue is Starmer deciding to "go early" and stick his head above the parapet and blindy/daftly commit troops to a peacekeeping force before we're anywhere near needing one. We've, according to Tugdenhat (and he may be telling fibs) just not got the resources at present. There was no reason for him to do that, as it was purely grandstanding, in my opinion (and I actually quite like Starmer)  - we apparently don't have the numbers or the equipment for a prolonged peace keeping presence, unless we dramatically increase our defense spend, which clearly we can't do at the minute

That's why I've asked @royal whitehis opinion, as he knows more than both you and I on the situation I'd have thought

[Cheese]

3 minutes ago, royal white said:

So how many do you think would be needed for a peace keeping force? 
 

@Sweep it’s impossible for me to say, 20 years of continuous conflicts and peace keeping missions haven’t left us in the best state. I still speak to the odd 1 or 2 lads that are in and they say the marines are in a shit state (kit wise). Saying that it was when I was in. 

No idea. How many do you think?

[Cheese]

Just now, Sweep said:

I know he's not you fucking dick, I didn't say we are going to declare war on Russia. The issue is Starmer deciding to "go early" and stick his head above the parapet and blindy/daftly commit troops to a peacekeeping force before we're anywhere near needing one. We've, according to Tugdenhat (and he may be telling fibs) just not got the resources at present. There was no reason for him to do that, as it was purely grandstanding, in my opinion (and I actually quite like Starmer)  - we apparently don't have the numbers or the equipment for a prolonged peace keeping presence, unless we dramatically increase our defense spend, which clearly we can't do at the minute

That's why I've asked @royal whitehis opinion, as he knows more than both you and I on the situation I'd have thought

Oh right. How many troops has he "committed"? Do you have a link?

[royal white]

5 minutes ago, gonzo said:

Donald Trump’s demand for a $500bn (£400bn) “payback” from Ukraine goes far beyond US control over the country’s critical minerals. It covers everything from ports and infrastructure to oil and gas, and the larger resource base of the country.

 

The terms of the contract that landed at Volodymyr Zelensky’s office a week ago amount to the US economic colonisation of Ukraine, in legal perpetuity. It implies a burden of reparations that cannot possibly be achieved. The document has caused consternation and panic in Kyiv.

 

The Telegraph has obtained a draft of the pre-decisional contract, marked “Privileged & Confidential’ and dated Feb 7 2025. It states that the US and Ukraine should form a joint investment fund to ensure that “hostile parties to the conflict do not benefit from the reconstruction of Ukraine”.

 

The agreement covers the “economic value associated with resources of Ukraine”, including “mineral resources, oil and gas resources, ports, other infrastructure (as agreed)”, leaving it unclear what else might be encompassed. “This agreement shall be governed by New York law, without regard to conflict of laws principles,” it states.

 

The US will take 50pc of recurring revenues received by Ukraine from extraction of resources, and 50pc of the financial value of “all new licences issued to third parties” for the future monetisation of resources. There will be “a lien on such revenues” in favour of the US. “That clause means ‘pay us first, and then feed your children’,” said one source close to the negotiations.

 

It states that “for all future licences, the US will have a right of first refusal for the purchase of exportable minerals”. Washington will have sovereign immunity and acquire near total control over most of Ukraine’s commodity and resource economy. The fund “shall have the exclusive right to establish the method, selection criteria, terms, and conditions” of all future licences and projects. And so forth, in this vein. It seems to have been written by private lawyers, not the US departments of state or commerce.

 

President Zelensky himself proposed the idea of giving the US a direct stake in Ukraine’s rare earth elements and critical minerals on a visit to Trump Tower in September, hoping to smooth the way for continued arms deliveries.

 

He calculated that it would lead to US companies setting operations on the ground, creating a political tripwire that would deter Vladimir Putin from attacking again.

 

Some mineral basins are near the front line in eastern Ukraine, or in Russian-occupied areas. He has played up the dangers of letting strategic reserves of titanium, tungsten, uranium, graphite and rare earths fall into Russian hands. “If we are talking about a deal, then let’s do a deal, we are only for it,” he said.

 

 

 

He probably did not expect to be confronted with terms normally imposed on aggressor states defeated in war. They are worse than the financial penalties imposed on Germany and Japan after their defeat in 1945. Both countries were ultimately net recipients of funds from the victorious allies.

 

A new Versailles

If this draft were accepted, Trump’s demands would amount to a higher share of Ukrainian GDP than reparations imposed on Germany at the Versailles Treaty, later whittled down at the London Conference in 1921, and by the Dawes Plan in 1924. At the same time, he seems willing to let Russia off the hook entirely

 

 

Donald Trump told Fox News that Ukraine had “essentially agreed” to hand over $500bn. “They have tremendously valuable land in terms of rare earths, in terms of oil and gas, in terms of other things,” he said.

 

He warned that Ukraine would be handed to Putin on a plate if it rejected the terms. “They may make a deal. They may not make a deal. They may be Russian someday, or they may not be Russian someday. But I want this money back,” he said.

 

Trump said the US had spent $300bn on the war so far, adding that it would be “stupid” to hand over any more. In fact the five packages agreed by Congress total $175bn, of which $70bn was spent in the US on weapons production. Some of it is in the form of humanitarian grants, but much of it is lend-lease money that must be repaid.

 

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham suggested at the Munich Security Conference over the weekend that Trump’s demand was a clever ploy to bolster declining popular support for the Ukrainian cause. “He can go to the American people and say, ‘Ukraine is not a burden, it is a benefit,’” he said.

 

Sen Graham told the Europeans to root hard for the idea because it locks Washington into defending a future settlement. “If we sign this minerals agreement, Putin is screwed, because Trump will defend the deal,” he said.

 

Ukrainian officials had to tiptoe though this minefield at the Munich forum, trying to smile gamely and talking up hopes of a resource deal while at the same pleading that the current text breaches Ukrainian law and needs redrafting. Well, indeed.

 

Talk of Ukraine’s resource wealth has become surreal. A figure of $26 trillion is being cast around for combined mineral reserves and hydrocarbons reserves. The sums are make-believe.

 

Ukraine probably has the largest lithium basin in Europe. But lithium prices have crashed by 88pc since the bubble burst in 2022. Large reserves are being discovered all over the world. The McDermitt Caldera in Nevada is thought to be the biggest lithium deposit on the planet with 40m metric tonnes, alone enough to catapult the US ahead of China.

 

The Thacker Pass project will be operational by next year. The value of lithium is in the processing and the downstream industries. Unprocessed rock deposits sitting in Ukraine are all but useless to the US.

It is a similar story for rare earths. They are not rare. Mining companies in the US abandoned the business in the 1990s because profit margins were then too low. The US government was asleep at the wheel and let this happen, waking up to discover that China has acquired a strategic stranglehold over supplies of critical elements needed for hi-tech and advanced weapons. That problem is being resolved.

 

Ukraine has cobalt but most EV batteries now use lithium ferrous phosphate and no longer need cobalt. Furthermore, sodium-ion and sulphur-based batteries will limit the future demand growth for lithium. So will recycling. One could go on. The mineral scarcity story is wildly exaggerated.

As for Ukraine’s shale gas, a) some of the Yuzivska field lies under Putin control, and b) the western Carpathian reserves are in complex geology with high drilling costs, causing Chevron to pull out, just as it did in Poland. Ukraine has more potential as an exporter of electricity to Europe from renewables and nuclear expansion, but that is not what is on Donald Trump’s mind.

 

The second violation of Ukraine

Ukraine cannot possibly meet his $500bn demand in any meaningful timeframe, leaving aside the larger matter of whether it is honourable to treat a victim nation in this fashion after it has held the battle line for the liberal democracies at enormous sacrifice for three years. Who really has a debt to whom, may one ask?

 

My style of dealmaking is quite simple and straightforward,” says Trump in his book The Art of the Deal. “I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I’m after.”

 

In genuine commerce the other side can usually walk away. Trump’s demand is iron-fist coercion by a neo-imperial power against a weaker nation with its back to the wall, and all for a commodity bonanza that exists chiefly in Trump’s head.

 

“Often-times the best deal you make is the deal you don’t make,” said Trump, offering another of his pearls.

 

Zelensky does not have that luxury. He has to pick between the military violation of Ukraine by Putin, and the economic violation of Ukraine by his own ally.

 

 

 

 

 

I hope he tried the Burger. Highly recommended. 
 

Reading that Trump sounds like a businessman. 

[Cheese]

4 minutes ago, royal white said:

I hope he tried the Burger. Highly recommended. 
 

Reading that Trump sounds like a businessman. 

He sounds like a wannabe-Oligarch. Which he is.

[kent_white]

1 hour ago, Sweep said:

Remember when he was going to sort Kim Jong Un out, and force him to give up his Nuclear and Long Range missile testing. I'm not sure much actually happened, beyond them having a meeting did it? 

The plus is that he's apparently talking to Putin, but that doesn't mean all will be well in the short or even medium term. Ideally for Putin, this causes a split between the US and the EU, with the US withdrawing all assistance (which they would do in a heartbeat, if it wasn't for the wealth of minerals in Ukraine)

He massively fucked up with North Korea and led to them essentially coming to the conclusion that they could never normalise relationships with the US. 

According to the YouTube videos I watch 😁

[Sweep]

27 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Oh right. How many troops has he "committed"? Do you have a link?

I don't know, but people who know more than me, say no matter how many it is it's too many, as things currently stand. I appreciate that ex-Army chiefs won't have their fingers on the pulse as much as you have though, so I'll disregard anything they have to say on the matter forthwith.

[Cheese]

2 minutes ago, Sweep said:

I don't know, but people who know more than me, say no matter how many it is it's too many, as things currently stand. I appreciate that ex-Army chiefs won't have their fingers on the pulse as much as you have though, so I'll disregard anything they have to say on the matter forthwith.

The answer is 0.

[Sweep]

1 minute ago, Cheese said:

The answer is 0.

Good. Let's hope that we send that exact number

[Bertie]

36 minutes ago, royal white said:

I hope he tried the Burger. Highly recommended. 
 

Reading that Trump sounds like an economic rapist. 

 

[Farrelli]

2 minutes ago, Bertie said:

 

He is a serial sex offender so he isn’t going to change now

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

I think we're going to have to quickly confront the reality that Europe is simply incapable of supporting the Ukrainian war effort militarily

There are differing opinions on how long our own counrty's stockpile of ammunition would last in a conventional war, but those opinions only range from at worst "an afternoon" to at most ten days

A consequence of political decision-making over decades

[royal white]

18 minutes ago, Bertie said:

 

Remember that when you next fill your car up and heat your home 👍👍

[Tonge moor green jacket]

6 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

I think we're going to have to quickly confront the reality that Europe is simply incapable of supporting the Ukrainian war effort militarily

There are differing opinions on how long our own counrty's stockpile of ammunition would last in a conventional war, but those opinions only range from at worst "an afternoon" to at most ten days

A consequence of political decision-making over decades

Another lend-lease agreement 😀 

Russia has also suffered greatly from equipment and munition stock depletion, as well as significant damage to its refining capacity, potentially affecting its exports to those still buying it. 

A tricky one to assess, and there'll be many a military expert poring over the figures.

[royal white]

Safe to say, if the yanks are going to claim some of those fields near the border or in already Russian occupied land then yanks will have boots on the ground along with some very well paid private military companies. (I might have to brush off my boots). 

 

European leaders really have been caught sleeping on this. Zelensky was having talks with Trump before he was even in power in which Trump said he was going to get it resolved very quickly. 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

Robert Fox- well renowned military journalist- reckons British troops will be in there within 2 or 3 years.

Going to be a long, convoluted process. 

[London Wanderer]

2 hours ago, royal white said:

You’ll be giving London a run for his money soon. 

 

2 hours ago, royal white said:

You don’t half waffle some shite lad 😂😂

Nothing constructive left to discuss, so out come the one liners about everyone else talking shite, with fck all evidence to show why 😂😂 It’ll be onto everyone’s jobs in a minute. 

Bravo 👏

Your discussion skills are brilliant x

[royal white]

30 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

 

Nothing constructive left to discuss, so out come the one liners about everyone else talking shite, with fck all evidence to show why 😂😂 It’ll be onto everyone’s jobs in a minute. 

Bravo 👏

Your discussion skills are brilliant x

You think the leader of somewhere like Belgium or Portugal could have got Putin to sit down and have peace talks. There’s nothing constructive to say to that. 
 

Blown um

Edited February 18, 2025 by royal white