Well if the US is no longer involved in negotiations, then there is zero benefit being offered to Ukraine and thus there is zero reason Zelensky should even consider signing that mineral deal.

[–] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 14 points 5 days ago (1 children)

According to CNN the rough terms actually agreed are:
"future American military assistance to Ukraine will count as part of the US investment into a joint reconstruction investment fund that will be used to pour money into Ukraine’s natural resources."

So if Trump flakes out then no investment is ever made.

[–] Shdwdrgn@mander.xyz 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I had assumed national treaties would have lawyers pouring over the details to ensure both parties got what they wanted, but it's good to see some of the details pointed out. Thanks for the update!

[–] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

It's honestly a win for Ukraine under the circumstances, ideally they wouldn't have been strongarmed but at the very least they either get assistance or get to keep their minerals.

[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 10 points 5 days ago (1 children)

US pulled out of several treaties they signed in his first term. Why can't other countries do the same to the US?

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 11 points 5 days ago

Narrator: they can.

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 8 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Too late for that.

[–] wagesj45@fedia.io 12 points 5 days ago

Countries don't play by the same rules, necessarily. The signature doesn't mean much if the signers are flaky. The question is what happens if Ukraine renigs on the deal. Maybe nothing, or maybe war.

Maybe this should serve as a warning to other countries trying to enter agreements with the US. We absolutely can't be trusted and you might just be signing a pretense for war or sanctions.