Site icon The Punching Bag Post

Allowing Putin to steal Ukraine’s resources makes America (Trump) look weak

&NewLine;<p>One of the issues complicating a Ukraine ceasefire or peace agreement is the natural resources found in the ground&period;<&sol;p>&NewLine;&NewLine;&NewLine;&NewLine;<p>We know that Ukraine is rich in critical natural resources&comma; such as rare earth&period;&nbsp&semi; Among his many reasons for wanting to enfold Ukraine into his Russian empire&comma; Putin wants all those natural mineral resources – just as he wants the agricultural resources – to supplement his oil-dependent economy&period;<&sol;p>&NewLine;&NewLine;&NewLine;&NewLine;<p>President Trump appears to have trumped Putin’s lust by entering into an agreement &&num;8212&semi; the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund <strong>&&num;8212&semi;<&sol;strong> that grants the United States access to the value of several critical minerals in return for military aide and economic investment in the nation’s reconstruction&period;<&sol;p>&NewLine;&NewLine;&NewLine;&NewLine;<p>That means that ANY of those mineral resources Putin holds in occupied regions – or what he can acquire – is to the detriment of both the United States and Ukraine&period;&nbsp&semi; Putin is essentially stealing the value of resources that are dedicated to the United States&period;&nbsp&semi; Putin is again kicking sand in Trump’s face&period;<&sol;p>&NewLine;&NewLine;&NewLine;&NewLine;<p>The Trump deal covers more than rare earth&period;  It deals covers 57 mineral categories&comma; including Lithium &lpar;critical in production of batteries&rpar; &&num;8230&semi; Graphite &lpar;used in electronics&rpar; &&num;8230&semi; Manganese &lpar;essential for production of steel&rpar; &&num;8230&semi; Zirconium &lpar;used in nuclear reactors and aerospace&rpar; &&num;8230&semi; Titanium &lpar;used by defense industry&rpar; &&num;8230&semi; Uranium &lpar;for nuclear energy&rpar; &&num;8230&semi; and oil and gas<&sol;p>&NewLine;&NewLine;&NewLine;&NewLine;<p>While Ukraine would retain ownership of the minerals and keep 100 percent of the profits for ten years&comma; the United States would invest in commercializing them and share half the profits after ten years&period; The delay in realizing profits from the venture would significantly aid Ukraine&&num;8217&semi;s reconstruction&period;<&sol;p>&NewLine;&NewLine;&NewLine;&NewLine;<p>The Trump-Zelenskyy resource agreement was hailed as a strategic victory—a deal securing the United States’ access to Ukraine’s vast mineral wealth while simultaneously boosting Kyiv’s post-war economy&period; &nbsp&semi;It also reduces American dependency on China and other countries&period;&nbsp&semi; But allowing Putin to retain control over mineral-rich Ukrainian territory undermines the very foundation of the deal&comma; weakens America’s geopolitical leverage and hands Russia a massive economic and strategic benefit&period;<&sol;p>&NewLine;&NewLine;&NewLine;&NewLine;<p>It has been estimated that more than 40 percent of Ukraine’s mineral reserves are in regions currently occupied by Russia – and would presumably be ceded to Putin in any peace deal&period;&nbsp&semi; It includes the Shevchenkivske lithium deposits&comma; Azovske zirconium deposits&comma; and Petrovo-Hnutivske rare earth deposits&period; The value of the mineral resources now under the control of Russia exceeds &dollar;12 trillion&period;<&sol;p>&NewLine;&NewLine;&NewLine;&NewLine;<p>It was argued that the deal with Ukraine was essentially a security issue – assuming that the United States would not allow Putin to take over more of Ukraine&period; However&comma; allowing Putin to retain almost half of Ukraine’s critical resources undermines that theory&period;<&sol;p>&NewLine;&NewLine;&NewLine;&NewLine;<p>Allowing Putin to succeed in gaining geography&comma; strategic locations&comma; vast resources and an enhanced international reputation as a winner &lpar;and conversely the United States and NATO as losers&rpar; – and positioning for a future aggression against Ukraine and conceivably NATO –would be a diplomatic and military disaster of monumental proportions&period; Appeasement in Ukraine would be a foreign policy blunder on par with President Biden’s tragic surrender in Afghanistan&period;<&sol;p>&NewLine;&NewLine;&NewLine;&NewLine;<p>Ukraine is the one issue that all at once tests Trump’s strength and reputation as a deal maker – and his America First agenda&period;&nbsp&semi; And yet&comma; none of that is evident in his handling of Ukraine – especially when it comes to the Ukrainian critical minerals issue&period;<&sol;p>&NewLine;&NewLine;&NewLine;&NewLine;<p>So&comma; there &OpenCurlyQuote;tis&period;<&sol;p>&NewLine;

Exit mobile version