Britain wants Ukraineâs minerals too Itâs not just Trump. The UK views critical minerals as a government priority and wants to open up Ukraineâs vast resources to British corporations.
When UK officials signed a 100 year partnership with Ukraine in mid-January, they claimed to be Ukraineâs âpreferred partnerâ in developing the countryâs âcritical minerals strategyâ.
Yet within a month, Donald Trump had presented a proposal to Ukraineâs President Volodymr Zelensky to access the countryâs vast mineral resources as âcompensationâ for US support to Ukraine in the war against Russia.
Whitehall was none too pleased about Washington muscling in.
When foreign secretary David Lammy met Zelensky in Kyiv last month he reportedly raised the issue of minerals, âa sign that Starmerâs government is still keen to get access to Ukraineâs richesâ, the iPaper reported.
Lammy earlier said, in a speech last year: âLook around the world. Countries are scrambling to secure critical minerals, just as great powers once raced to control oilâ.
The UK foreign secretary was correct, but Britain itself is one of those powers, and Ukraine is one of the major countries UK officials â as well as the Trump administration â have their eyes on. (...)
oh, that's rich. This is the second time when backed into a corner, you suddenly come out with criticism of Russia. Sorry mate, not buying it.
You know what I think? I think any country under attack has a right to defend itself. It therefore has a right to source its defenses from wherever the hell it can get them.
All the more so, when the aggressor is on a demonstrable path of ethnic cleansing and imperial expansion as in this case.
Yet 99% of your posts about Ukraine are pro-Kremlin and how resistance is futile and they should just surrender and accept their fate. When you get called out on the inconsistency, you come up with same lame moral equivalence that "neither are justified." Sorry man. Not credible.
Violence is never justified; always rationalized. Russia invaded Ukraine - a sovereign state. Defending themselves is the rational thing to do.
In terms of ending this war, Russia can end it anytime they like.
oh, that's rich. This is the second time when backed into a corner, you suddenly come out with criticism of Russia. Sorry mate, not buying it.
You know what I think? I think any country under attack has a right to defend itself. It therefore has a right to source its defenses from wherever the hell it can get them.
All the more so, when the aggressor is on a demonstrable path of ethnic cleansing and imperial expansion as in this case.
Yet 99% of your posts about Ukraine are pro-Kremlin and how resistance is futile and they should just surrender and accept their fate. When you get called out on the inconsistency, you come up with same lame moral equivalence that "neither are justified." Sorry man. Not credible.
It's unfortunate that victims of UDS have this habit of spinning and misrepresenting the opinions of people with whom they disagree. As posted before: only simple binaries exists. For/with us or for/with the enemy. If you don't take the maximalist position then you're appeasing. Black & white. Good vs. Evil
Red herring, because neither are justified despite your ad hom straw man claiming otherwise.
oh, that's rich. This is the second time when backed into a corner, you suddenly come out with criticism of Russia. Sorry mate, not buying it.
You know what I think? I think any country under attack has a right to defend itself. It therefore has a right to source its defenses from wherever the hell it can get them.
All the more so, when the aggressor is on a demonstrable path of ethnic cleansing and imperial expansion as in this case.
Yet 99% of your posts about Ukraine are pro-Kremlin and how resistance is futile and they should just surrender and accept their fate. When you get called out on the inconsistency, you come up with same lame moral equivalence that "neither are justified." Sorry man. Not credible.
I've got a 5-year old son. Don't need anymore kindergarten bells and whistles right now thanks.
This is precisely what you do repeatedly. You post everything you get your hands on about ethnic cleansing in Gaza,
then when the Russias do the very same thing as the Israelis you find it entirely justified.
Not sure if you are aware of it , but it makes you look entirely hollow.
You actually don't give a shit, do you? It's all just something to instrumentalize.
I've got a 5-year old son. Don't need anymore kindergarten bells and whistles right now thanks.
This is precisely what you do repeatedly. You post everything you get your hands on about ethnic cleansing in Gaza,
then when the Russias do the very same thing as the Israelis you find it entirely justified.
Not sure if you are aware of it , but it makes you look entirely hollow.
You actually don't give a shit, do you? It's all just something to instrumentalize.
First impressions on the US-Ukraine deal are that Ukraine has shown that its always best not to grovel, apologize or become desperate with Trump. He cut their aid, helped kill their people, and they kept fighting with their head held high. They made him look cruel and he blinked
Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine Andrii Yermak:
"The main achievements, the results of today's meeting are the immediate resumption of American assistance and intelligence sharing.We also discussed all the issues related to the process of ending the war,ending the war by a just peace"
hard to believe/trust at this stage. but color me surprised. Wasn't expecting that.
Funny, you never mention the Ukrainians' interests. Or the Georgians, or the Chechens,
Or the Poles' or the Latvians' or the Finns' or the Estonians' or the Moldovans' or the Czechs' or the Slovaks' or the Slovenians' or any number of nations that only recently escaped from under the boot of the Russian empire and don't want to go back under. Your worldview has no place for them, other than as pawns in games between major powers.
Obama, like Trump, was negotiating over the future of Ukraine without involving the Ukrainians. He appeasedârather than confrontedâan expansive authoritarian state intent on growing by conquest. That looks like a mistake from 2025, but what do weâthe worldâdo now?
It's clear from both rhetoric and actions that Putin intends to reconstitute the Russian empire, to seek dominance over eastern Europe and the Baltics. Europe (other than Orban's Hungary) recognizes that threat. The answer you keep cutting and pasting to this threat is to either look the other way, pretending it isn't real, or to sympathize with the source of that threat.
You may get what you want. The irony here is that this politics of raw power you favor is now a threat to your own country. What will you do if this modern Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact emerging between Putin and Trump actually holds this time, and the mighty powers stick to their agreed spheres of influence, carving up the world between them?
You may prefer one form of authoritarian to another, but you won't get a choice of which boot you have to lick.
+1
Once a former Soviet satellite... always a Soviet satellite (apparently).
The irony here is that this politics of raw power you favor is now a threat to your own country.
Clearly can't help yourself. Ironically, there's more than a little projection involved there (But muh American Power!). See the infantile cartoon, Mr. Birch.
Funny, you never mention the Ukrainians' interests. Or the Georgians, or the Chechens,
Or the Poles' or the Latvians' or the Finns' or the Estonians' or the Moldovans' or the Czechs' or the Slovaks' or the Slovenians' or any number of nations that only recently escaped from under the boot of the Russian empire and don't want to go back under. Your worldview has no place for them, other than as pawns in games between major powers.
Obama, like Trump, was negotiating over the future of Ukraine without involving the Ukrainians. He appeasedârather than confrontedâan expansive authoritarian state intent on growing by conquest. That looks like a mistake from 2025, but what do weâthe worldâdo now?
It's clear from both rhetoric and actions that Putin intends to reconstitute the Russian empire, to seek dominance over eastern Europe and the Baltics. Europe (other than Orban's Hungary) recognizes that threat. The answer you keep cutting and pasting to this threat is to either look the other way, pretending it isn't real, or to sympathize with the source of that threat.
You may get what you want. The irony here is that this politics of raw power you favor is now a threat to your own country. What will you do if this modern Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact emerging between Putin and Trump actually holds this time, and the mighty powers stick to their agreed spheres of influence, carving up the world between them?
You may prefer one form of authoritarian to another, but you won't get a choice of which boot you have to lick.
spot on.
That has always been the most glaring logical inconsistency in all of R_P's posts. After screeds of anti-American posts (some of which are quite justified, I might add) he has always been completely blind to other empires doing exactly the same thing as what he found so despicable about US policy. Be it Chinese handling of Tibetans or Uighurs, Russian handling of its satellite states, etc. Not a word.
With that he has eroded all values-based justification for his own world view and reduced it all to purely power-based politics. And in doing so, he ironically lets the US off the hook, because if it is all just about power, then they are entirely justified in doing what they do, however they want.
I actually don't think this is R's actual view of things, but by failing to criticise powers other than the US, he has basically painted himself into a corner. Either we should have a values-based system and we can hammer out those values, or we don't. The default option is naked power.
@R_P, tell us where we are wrong without making some vacuous "we don't share ideologies" or "if you don't get it by now" comment. You could maybe start by explaining why the Tibetans don't get the same treatment from you as the Palestinians, for instance.
You just don't (want to) get it. I don't justify this war. The people that predicted the war, and in some cases the likely outcome, didn't justify it either. They warned you what might happen. FAFO.
Agent Obama (2016) on core interests, using the language of 'realist' IR academics:
Funny, you never mention the Ukrainians' interests. Or the Georgians, or the Chechens,
Or the Poles' or the Latvians' or the Finns' or the Estonians' or the Moldovans' or the Czechs' or the Slovaks' or the Slovenians' or any number of nations that only recently escaped from under the boot of the Russian empire and don't want to go back under. Your worldview has no place for them, other than as pawns in games between major powers.
Obama, like Trump, was negotiating over the future of Ukraine without involving the Ukrainians. He appeasedârather than confrontedâan expansive authoritarian state intent on growing by conquest. That looks like a mistake from 2025, but what do weâthe worldâdo now?
It's clear from both rhetoric and actions that Putin intends to reconstitute the Russian empire, to seek dominance over eastern Europe and the Baltics. Europe (other than Orban's Hungary) recognizes that threat. The answer you keep cutting and pasting to this threat is to either look the other way, pretending it isn't real, or to sympathize with the source of that threat.
You may get what you want. The irony here is that this politics of raw power you favor is now a threat to your own country. What will you do if this modern Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact emerging between Putin and Trump actually holds this time, and the mighty powers stick to their agreed spheres of influence, carving up the world between them?
You may prefer one form of authoritarian to another, but you won't get a choice of which boot you have to lick.
Try again. Justify this warâthe hundreds of thousands dead, the millions displaced and homeless, all of itâwithout engaging in this infantile retort.
You just don't (want to) get it. I don't justify this war. The people that predicted the war, and in some cases the likely outcome, didn't justify it either. They warned you what might happen. FAFO.
Agent Obama (2016) on core interests, using the language of 'realist' IR academics:
