He said that weapons shipments would continue if there's a deal. No troops on the ground aka the only thing Zelensky considers to be a "security guarantee."

What everyone is missing is that if America has a $500b interest in Ukraine's fancy rocks, Daddy is not going to let Pootin disrupt that.

Multiple sources have told the BBC's US partner CBS News that the terms of the deal have not yet been finalised and could change from a previous version, which was published by Ukrainian media before Zelensky's meeting with Trump and Vance.

That version of the deal envisages that an "investment fund" will be set up for Ukraine's reconstruction, which Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal said would be managed by Kyiv and Washington on "equal terms".

According to the text, Ukraine will contribute 50% of future proceeds from state-owned mineral resources, oil and gas to the fund, and the fund will then invest "to promote the safety, security and prosperity of Ukraine".

Meanwhile, the agreement says the US government will, subject to US law, "maintain a long-term financial commitment to the development of a stable and economically prosperous Ukraine".

The US will own the maximum amount of the fund allowed under US law, the agreement says.

In the days before the deal was supposed to be signed, disagreement over its terms formed part of a deepening rift between Trump and Zelensky.

The Ukrainian president rejected an initial request from the US for $500bn (£395bn) in mineral wealth, but this demand was dropped from the version published online.

"The US administration started with a deal that challenged Ukraine's sovereignty, then pushed an exploitative one that would bankrupt the country," Tymofiy Mylovanov, a former minister and head of Kyiv school of economics, told the BBC.

"Now, they've shifted to a reasonable deal with co-ownership and no direct claims on past aid. That could actually benefit Ukraine."

Trump has repeatedly claimed the US has given Ukraine between $300bn (£237bn) and $350bn (£276bn) in aid, and that he wanted to "get that money back" through a deal.

Zelensky has been pushing for a deal to include a firm security guarantee from the US.

No such guarantee has yet been made, although the published text says the US supports "Ukraine's efforts to obtain security guarantees to build lasting peace".

Trump has suggested the presence of US contractors in Ukraine would act as a security guarantee, but responsibility for Ukraine's security would now fall to Europe.

The prospect of a minerals deal was first proposed by Zelensky last year as a way to offer the US a tangible reason to continue supporting Ukraine.

Trump initially said Ukraine would get "the right to fight on" in return for access to its minerals, but in the days after the spat in Washington he paused all US military aid to Ukraine.

So the US gives them money in a fund, then long term Ukraine pays it back with half of profits from mineral/oil/gas?

If they apparently get access to minerals, Wouldn't America need to send security forces to "protect their investments"? It seems like a perfect excuse to put what is effectively a military base on top of some useless mine, especially since I have heard people suggest that the value of Ukraine's rare earth minerals is grossly exaggerated. Unfortunately, I don't think any American government official would ever be intelligent enough to even consider a gambit with that many layers of pretext.

"For me to weigh in with my opinion I need the details of this agreement spelled out and then and only then can I weigh in" here's an idea, stay uninformed lmao no one wants to hear your fricking dumb opinion