Unable to load image

[πŸ€“πŸ€“πŸ€“πŸ€“πŸ”˜] Zelenskyy caves. He says he is ready to work under Trump and sign the deal.

https://old.reddit.com/r/PowerfulJRE/comments/1j3f6y2/zelenskyy_caves_he_says_he_is_ready_to_work_under/

								

								

Most Based Comments

Basedness: πŸ”₯πŸ”₯πŸ”˜πŸ”˜πŸ”˜

Until he tries to get the US to fight their war again (-8)

Basedness: πŸ”₯πŸ”₯πŸ”˜πŸ”˜πŸ”˜

Trump could cure cancer and create world peace…Reddit libs won't care. (6)

Basedness: πŸ”₯πŸ”˜πŸ”˜πŸ”˜πŸ”˜

"Trump's push for peace may have long lasting destabilizing effects in Europe". (33)

That was actually pretty creative. I wonder what BS they will come up with to enrage everyone that he's trying to take over the world (9)

Angriest Comments

Angriness: πŸ˜‘πŸ˜‘πŸ˜‘πŸ˜‘πŸ”˜

Right now, millions of Libs are devastated that WW3 isn't going to happen. They are heartbroken that Raytheon won't have a banner year. Pounding their fists in frustration that Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman might not post record profits.WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE WAR-MACHINE???😭 (91)

Angriness: πŸ˜‘πŸ˜‘πŸ˜‘πŸ”˜πŸ”˜

Frick that piece of shit. Don't come over here and act like some big shit then run over to Europe for a photo op like they are doing something for you and then you read it to find out they will help you in 2027. Then run back to the US saying you're sorry. Go to heck. (1)

Angriness: πŸ˜‘πŸ˜‘πŸ˜‘πŸ”˜πŸ”˜

They'll still say Trump didn't end the war fast enough (as if Biden was doing anything to end it) because Trump claimed he would get peace on day 1. They'll completely ignore/forget/pretend-away the fact that Zelenskyy was the reason peace couldn't happen on day 1. (4)

Oh for sure. Did you see the deepfake on here of their conversation? They've got him saying shit like "no the war must continue so I can steal more money" shit is hilarious (1)

Biggest Lolcow: /u/H3nchman_24

Score: πŸ”˜πŸ”˜πŸ”˜πŸ”˜πŸ”˜

Number of comments: 1

Average angriness: πŸ”˜πŸ”˜πŸ”˜πŸ”˜πŸ”˜

Maximum angriness: πŸ˜‘πŸ˜‘πŸ˜‘πŸ˜‘πŸ”˜

Minimum angriness: πŸ˜‘πŸ˜‘πŸ˜‘πŸ˜‘πŸ”˜

NEW: Subscribe to /h/miners to see untapped drama veins, ripe for mining! :marseyminer:

:marppy: autodrama: automating away the jobs of dramneurodivergents. :marseycapitalistmanlet: Ping HeyMoon if there are any problems or you have a suggestion :marseyjamming:

68
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Can someone tell me what that "deal" actually entails?

So America gets ressources....For free? Or do they pay for them?

Does Ukraine get weapons?

I literaly have no idea.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I mean that's what I understood, we're essentially occupying the area with "economic interests" as a smoke screen for deploying US assets to help prevent any shenanigans from the Russians under the guise of "mining".

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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 (Β£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 (Β£237bn) and $350bn (Β£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?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It's a foreign investment fund with 50% ROI (profits/maybe taxes) going to the US and the majority trade (ie minerals) going to US

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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. :marseyshrug:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

US was never going to put troops on the ground in Ukraine, that is worse than Euro ones on the power scale so I doubt Russia wants that

Ukraine wants the usual guaruntees like Tomahawk strikes and maybe air denial, stuff beyond sanctions. But they will probably be happy with less.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Trump's whole foreign policy is "I'm gonna bomb people so hard and so fast that the domestic regional forces can swoop in easily and stabilize the area so American troops can fricking leave"

Its why Trump's first military bombing this time around was bombing a bunch of ISIS Somalis that numbered maybe 500 dudes with 18 F18s. Thats more overkill than the MOAB stunt he pulled the last time.

EIGHTEEN. You really only need 1 F18 to bomb a guy, but they decided "Nah, show of force. 18 fricking fighters"

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Look, we paid for those 18 and we barely get to use them.

I'm happy to pay a little extra tax jf it means I get to see cool bombs get dropped by awesome jets

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I just hope we over-react to air zone incursions by the Chinks and Russians with a full squad of Raptors for the lulz. :pray:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

no slur for russians?

Russian programming is complete. Individual has lost all autonomy.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

F/A-18 squadrons need redundancy because they often crash or get shot down by their own carrier anti-air

:marseykekw:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

"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 :marseyletsgo:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.



Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.