The Financial Times reported on March 27 that the latest version of the agreement proposed by the U.S. includes terms that would grant Washington unprecedented control over Ukraine's natural resources through a joint investment fund.

Summary

President Volodymyr Zelensky warned on March 28 that Ukraine will reject a proposed U.S. minerals deal if it endangers the country’s EU accession.

A new draft, reportedly granting the U.S. extensive control over Ukrainian natural resources, raised concerns over economic sovereignty.

Zelensky said lawyers will review the agreement, emphasizing it must not conflict with Ukraine’s constitutional EU alignment.

The initial deal would create a joint fund reinvesting extraction proceeds into Ukraine. The White House views it as a way to recoup aid, but Kyiv remains cautious after a prior dispute with Trump.

    • P1nkman@lemmy.worldEnglish
      451·
      3 months ago

      But the minerals will make the rich richer, so of course, the minerals MUST be mined! It’s capitalism 101

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      6·
      3 months ago

      It’s like they want humanity to starve.

      Quite a few members of the Trump Administration, including his Secretary of Health and Human Services, are avowed eugenicists.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      4·
      3 months ago

      Around here they build shopping malls over the most fertile land we have access to instead of using it to grow food for the millions of people living right next to it…

    • gressen@lemm.eeEnglish
      1411·
      3 months ago

      I was with you until you mixed nuclear into the post. Chernobyl was a series of human errors and bad decisions. We need nuclear to fix our energy issues and slapping the name onto a separate issue is dishonest and makes me doubt your intentions.

      • Denvil@lemmy.oneEnglish
        30·
        3 months ago

        They never claimed that nuclear is bad, they claimed that the Chernobyl disaster has already negatively impacted the land enough, mining would only make it worse

      • Metz@lemmy.worldEnglish
        9·
        3 months ago

        Who is “we”?

        e.g. Germany already produces 60% of its power reneweable. The plan is 100% by 2030-2035. And the prices for reneweables are already far below the ones for nuclear.

        So why throw 10 billion euro into building a nuclear power plant that delivers 1 Gigawatt when you build reneweables for 1 billion that delivers 10 Gigawatt?

      • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.worldEnglish
        29·
        3 months ago

        Claiming “we need nuclear” makes me doubt your competence. And I say that as someone who prefers fission plants over burning fossil fuels.

  • mooncake@lemm.eeEnglish
    30·
    3 months ago

    Why the fuck would you even consider signing anything to that fat orange shit? Every single one of his administration just made a mockery of you last month

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      6·
      3 months ago

      Why the fuck would you even consider signing anything to that fat orange shit?

      Ask Chuck Schumer. He insists he’s got his reasons.

        • Enzy@lemm.eeEnglish
          2·
          3 months ago

          And unlike Trump, isn’t a waste of oxygen on this planet.

          But I’d rather pick total annihilation than bowing to a dictator. So hope the EU deal isn’t interrupted by the orange turds and their stink.

  • jaybone@lemmy.zipEnglish
    24·
    3 months ago

    We’ve reached the point where signing a deal with the US threatens EU membership 😞

  • selokichtli@lemmy.mlEnglish
    18·
    3 months ago

    A deal with the USA means nothing, but that is as true today as it was in 2014 and 2022.