US-Ukraine Minerals Deal: Has Trump Agreed to Continue Military Support? Even if Not, Will He Fall for an Endowment Effect Trap/ | naked capitalism

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

78% : I can't help but think in these moments as I read this extraordinary news of that meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump in St. Peter's Basilica. Pope Francis, wherever you are, thank you.
65% : Yours truly remarked otherwise, that this looked like a way for Trump to justify and get funding for a continued US participation, even if at a lower level than under Biden, by presenting it as a loan.
58% : It may serve to bolster the barmy claim that somehow Trump won.
51% : It is an agreement of net benefit to Ukraine compared to all previous iterations: - Ukraine will have full ownership of the resources; - The agreement only covers future exploration, exploitation and refining projects, not existing ones already in Ukraine's operation; - Ukraine will decide what these will be; - A fund (called the Ukrainian Reconstruction Investment Fund for Reconstruction of Ukraine) will be set up in which Ukraine and the US have 50-50 participation without US veto power from the initial agreement projects; - All Ukrainian companies that are responsible for energy resources remain 100% Ukrainian state-owned (Ukrnafta or Energoatom); - It was agreed that Ukraine owes no financial debt for wartime economic aid to the US; - The agreement is within the limits of Ukrainian law and in no way infringes on Ukraine's economic sovereignty, indeed Bessent stated that the US strongly supports Ukraine's accession to the European Union; - It was agreed that the US will provide not only technological transfer for the development of the new projects, but also financial support on the basis of 50% of their value, but (ATTENTION!!!)
49% : After concerns in Kyiv over whether the deal would violate Ukraine's sovereignty and disrupt its path towards EU membership, Svyrydenko said her negotiators ensured the language complied with her country's constitution "and maintains Ukraine's European integration course". John Helmer, in the aforementioned interview with Nima of Dialogue Works, confirmed our concerned, based on an earlier edition of the Financial Times story cited above.
49% : It's not noticed by the FT, but the Ukrainians have been led to believe by Trump that he will go on supporting the Ukraine with military aid.
47% : From our February post, Trump Will End His Option of Walking Away from Project Ukraine with His Minerals Deal: WE TOLD YOU SO.
46% : Trump's bluster and bullying were no match for the non-negotiable Putin or even the conniver Zelensky.
43% : Mind you, the US is fabulously agreement incapable and Trump has managed to be even more so.
41% : But as its contours emerge, other commentators are reaching the same conclusion that we did from the get-go: that it would not just provide Trump with a pretext to continue funding the war, but having an economic interest in Ukraine's survival would give the Administration a reason to keep Ukraine fighting.
21% : But they can't agree on how it will be offset by the payback mechanism Trump is using.
14% : As we pointed out in February: Now in fairness, this document is so loosey-goosey that Trump could later make all sorts of excuses why he walked away, not that Trump has ever been big on consistency.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.