An ideal deal for Ukraine’s future

Would you like “the ultimate betrayal”?

I’m talking about the $500 billion from Trump for Ukraine’s natural resources (critical materials, oil, gas).

I got to the original source of the news; it was a transcript of Trump’s interview with Fox News.

So here’s the deal:

— This is not an investment from the US in Ukraine’s development of deposits or the processing of raw materials into finished products.

— It’s not the purchase of extracted resources from Ukraine.

— This is not an agreement related to ensuring Ukraine’s security.

— This is “compensation” for the costs the US incurred providing assistance to Ukraine.

I’m not joking. Read it yourself.

And they believe that the US has spent not $70 billion on Ukraine, as President Zelensky claims, but a total of $300 billion.

Here are a few quotes:

— President Trump claims that Ukraine “essentially agreed” to provide the US with rare-earth minerals worth half a trillion dollars as payment for the military aid Washington has given Kyiv.

— They have extremely valuable land in terms of rare-earth metals, oil, and gas, among other things. I want our money to be safe because we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars.

— Trump insisted that the US should have access to Ukraine’s natural resources, regardless of whether a peace deal can be successfully negotiated between Russia and the former Soviet state.

— They can make a deal. They could become Russian one day, or they might not. But we will have all this money in Ukraine, and I’m saying, I want it back.

— I told them that I need rare-earth minerals worth approximately $500 billion, and they essentially agreed to do that.

— I told them, “We have to—we must get something in return. We can’t keep paying this money,” Trump continued, asserting that continuing to provide aid to war-torn Ukraine for free would be “foolish.”

What do you think? Trump isn’t talking about Ukraine’s security or ending the war; he’s talking about compensation for the money spent supporting Ukraine. He doesn’t mention, for example, the obligations of the US under the Budapest Memorandum or the US interests in preventing the strengthening of adversaries—Russia and China.

This story reminds me of the Wild West, where the sheriff gets into a fight with bandits who attacked a caravan of goods. And by the time the fight is over, he takes the entire convoy of goods as compensation for the spent ammunition.

If this happens, Ukraine could turn into a desert, a land filled with countless quarries and mines, where there is no safety or prospects for development, where there is no place for children. A place without ecology, without clean water. A place where the streets are unsafe.

Do you remember the 1990s film Mad Max? Ukraine, under such an agreement, could end up looking like that.

What could an ideal agreement look like?

1. We do not acknowledge any obligations for the money spent on Ukraine (this is part of the Budapest Memorandum).

2. But we grant access to Ukraine’s subsoil (based on licenses, in accordance with the Constitution and current laws).

3. We receive not virtual, but real security guarantees.

4. We provide tax incentives and benefits for processing raw materials extracted in Ukraine into finished products.

5. We create the best conditions for American companies to do business on the European continent.

6. We truly eliminate corruption.

7. And we become European partners of the USA in matters such as: ensuring security in Europe, global food security, replacing Russia and China in the market of critical materials needed by the USA, displacing Russia from its usual arms and energy markets.

What do you think?

Anatoliy Amelin