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.
Ok, but what if we leave the minerals in the ground and preserve the world’s most fertile and productive agricultural land instead of poisoning it with mining runoff?
https://hir.harvard.edu/not-so-green-technology-the-complicated-legacy-of-rare-earth-mining/
https://earth.org/rare-earth-mining-has-devastated-chinas-environment/
https://climatecosmos.com/climate-science/the-impact-of-rare-earth-mining-on-the-environment/
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1557/s43577-022-00286-6
Chernobyl was bad enough… It’s like they want humanity to starve.
But the minerals will make the rich richer, so of course, the minerals MUST be mined! It’s capitalism 101
We require more minerals for the expansion of the creep!
Quite a few members of the Trump Administration, including his Secretary of Health and Human Services, are avowed eugenicists.
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…
Ontario. Open for businesses.
Quebec, south shore of the St Lawrence, across the bridge from Montreal!
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.
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
Thank you.
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?
Claiming “we need nuclear” makes me doubt your competence. And I say that as someone who prefers fission plants over burning fossil fuels.