Millaiseen sopimukseen Ukrainan sota päättyy?

Kyllä siellä nyt ryssä nauraa.

"– Venäjä on saavuttanut voiton, josta se ei osannut edes haaveilla vuonna 2022. Onnistuimme hajottamaan lännen kahteen vastakkaiseen osaan" jne.

 
Tässä on nyt monta muuttujaa. Kyse on varmaankin uraanista, titaanista, litiumista ja grafiitista. Periaatteessa kun katsoo Venäjän hyökkäyssuuntia, sama juttu heillä on ollut mielessään. Kurahovessa taisivat jo saadakin jonkun esiintymän.

Vaikka Venäjä riemuitsee (lähinnä Euroopan ja Yhdysvaltain välirikosta, jota yllätys yllätys sadat trollit rummuttavat), se voi olla vähän aikaista. Yhdysvallatko haluaisi, että Venäjä (ja Kiina) saa tärkeät raaka-aineet? Eiköhän se halua hyödyntää niitä oman liiketoiminnan puitteissa. Eivät sopimukset ole mitenkään valmiita. Jos FT ei puhu apulantaa, osapuolet perustavat rahaston, johon Ukraina sijoittaa puolet luonnonvarojansa hyödyntävien valtionyhtiöiden ”tulevasta monetisaatiosta”. Säätiö investoisi varojansa Ukrainassa tapahtuviin liiketoimiin.

Se tarkoittaa siis vasta periaatepäätöstä. Sen jälkeen tulee monenlaista tinkimistä. Mikä on Yhdysvaltain osuus perustettavassa rahastossa? Yhteisen liiketoiminnan ehdot ovat vielä auki.

Varmaa on, että Amerikka on nyt sitten Ukrainassa. Sen omistukset. Mitä se sitten merkitseekään.

Emme tiedä läheskään kaikkea. Joko "apinaa koijataan", kuten tietysti kaikki nyt ovat varmoja, mutta voiko mitenkään olla mahdollista, että Ukrainan peliliike onnistuu? Ei se päivässä mitään muuta, mutta pitkällä aikavälillä tuon täytyy merkitä jotain.

Ukrainalaisen kaivosteollisuuden Zelenskyille tarjoama idea tämä varmasti alun perin on joka tapauksessa ollut, eivätkä he näköjään neuvottelijoinakaan ihan paperia ole, edes noin vaikeassa asemassa. Ei tämä ole amerikkalaisten keksintö, mutta Trump haistoi mineraalit, kun tarjottiin.
 

Macron: Joukot osoitus solidaarisuudesta Ukrainalle​

Macron sanoo, että keskusteluissa on edistytty ja presidenttikaksikko on tehnyt töitä myös sopimuksen suhteen, joka koskee maametalleja.

Keskusteluja on käyty myös turvatakuista ja rauhan ehdoista. Mitä joukkoihin tulee, Macronin mukaan niiden lähettämistä voidaan miettiä pysyvän rauhan solmimisen jälkeen. Joukkoja ei kuitenkaan lähetettäisi etulinjaan tai miehitetyille alueille.

Joukot olisivat Macronin mukaan osoitus solidaarisuudesta Ukrainalle. Kyse on kuitenkin, missä muodossa Yhdysvallat ottaisi osaa näihin joukkoihin.

Macron toistaa jälleen, että Eurooppa tulee ottamaan vastuunsa turvallisuudestaan.

Jos Venäjä rikkoisi mahdollista sopimusta, olisi se Macronin mukaan sodassa kaikkia rauhan osapuolia vastaan.
 
Putin yrittää varmasti päästä osille ja sitä kautta tavoitteisiinsa eli jonkinlaiseen moderniin versioon vuoden 1939 Puolan jakamisesta yhteistyössä toisen sankarin kanssa, mutta nyt palikat liikkuvat sitä vauhtia, että sekä pelot että toiveajattelu on hylättävä. Pitää katsoa vain tekoja emmekä tiedä, mitä tapahtuu todella.

Republikaanien käsityksen mukaan rahasta koko sodassa on kysymys. Kun rahasta sovitaan, homma ratkeaa. Se, onko käsitys oikea, onkin sitten toinen juttu. Amerikkalainen bisnessilmä ei ehkä ota huomioon idän ideologioiden voimaa. Talouden lisäksi kyse on myös politiikasta.

Ainakin aavistelen, että tämä on osa tämän hetken ruutua, mutta tunnustan toki tietämättömyyteni.
 
Sopimus on laadittu niin nopeasti, että epäilen sen olevan aika yleisluonteinen, ja voi olla melkoisia tulkinnanvaraisuuksia toteuttamisessa.
Anyhoo, tämmöisessä on kyllä potentiaali hyödyttää molempia osapuolia, koska Ukrainan kaivosteollisuus tarvitsee investointeja. Mutta kuten Grönlanninkin tapauksessa, jotkut internetissä tuntuu uskovan mineraaleja pikavoitoiksi, että arvokkaat metallit lojuu maassa valmiina harkkoina kun tyhmät paikalliset eivät ole itse tajunneet niitä myydä. Näinhän ei ole, vaan jos kaivoksella halutaan tienata miljardi, täytyy ensiksi investoida 990 miljoonaa. Ukrainalla näitä rahoja ei ole.
 
Mutta kuten Grönlanninkin tapauksessa, jotkut internetissä tuntuu uskovan mineraaleja pikavoitoiksi, että arvokkaat metallit lojuu maassa valmiina harkkoina kun tyhmät paikalliset eivät ole itse tajunneet niitä myydä. Näinhän ei ole, vaan jos kaivoksella halutaan tienata miljardi, täytyy ensiksi investoida 990 miljoonaa. Ukrainalla näitä rahoja ei ole.
Nimenomaan kyse ei ole holvin tyhjentämisestä vaan pitkäkestoisesta hommasta. Investoinneilla ei ole mikään kiire, mutta "valtaus" on tehty.

Lindsey Graham on aktiivisimmin ajanut tätä. Hän kävi kuusi kertaa Ukrainassa ja näyttää syksyllä viitanneen melkoisiin resursseihin:


Liekö tuo sähköautomieskin tyytyväinen:
 
Financial Times kertoo nähneensä viimeisimmän, 24.2. päivätyn version Ukrainalle suunnatusta "diilistä":

"The final version of the agreement, dated February 24 and seen by the FT, would establish a fund into which Ukraine would contribute 50 per cent of proceeds from the “future monetisation” of state-owned mineral resources, including oil and gas, and associated logistics. The fund would invest in projects in Ukraine".

Melkeinpä tämä FT:n artikkeli enemmän kysymyksiä herättää, kuin vastauksia antaa. Syntyy vaikutelma pikemminkin jonkinlaisesta aie- tai vast. sopimusmallista, joka vaatisi vielä toteuttamiseen mahdollisesti laajojakin jatkoneuvotteluja ja tarkemmin lukkoonlyötävää? Tässä uusimmassa "diilissä", mitään turvatakuita ei Ukrainalle olisi tulossa. Mainita ei myöskään alueita, minne diili ulottuisi. Lähteet FT:llä ovat kyllä perinteisesti kunnossa olleet, joten ehkäpä sillä silmällä spoilerissa olevaa artikkelia lukemaan...


Ukraine agrees minerals deal with US
Kyiv hopes agreement on jointly exploring resources will improve relations with Trump administration

Volodymyr Zelenskyy last week rejected Donald Trump’s initial terms © FT Montage/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Kyiv has agreed terms with Washington on a minerals deal that Ukrainian officials hope will improve relations with the Trump administration and pave the way for a long-term US security commitment.

Ukrainian officials said Kyiv was ready to sign the agreement on jointly developing its mineral resources, including oil and gas, after the US dropped demands for a right to $500bn in potential revenue from the deal.

Although the text lacks explicit security guarantees, the officials argued they had negotiated far more favourable terms and depicted the deal as a way of broadening the relationship with the US to shore up Ukraine’s prospects after three years of war.

“The minerals agreement is only part of the picture. We have heard multiple times from the US administration that it’s part of a bigger picture,” Olha Stefanishyna, Ukraine’s deputy prime minister and justice minister who has led the negotiations, told the Financial Times on Tuesday.

A Ukrainian official with knowledge of the matter said president Volodymyr Zelenskyy was planning to travel to Washington on Friday to see Donald Trump and formalise the deal.

On Tuesday the US president appeared to confirm his Ukrainian counterpart’s visit, saying: “I hear that [Zelenskyy is] coming on Friday. Certainly it’s OK with me if he’d like to.”

The original draft agreement’s highly onerous terms — which Trump presented as a means of Ukraine repaying the US for military and financial aid since Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion — provoked outrage in Kyiv and other European capitals.

After Zelenskyy rejected that initial text last week, Trump called him a “dictator” and appeared to blame Ukraine for starting the war.

The final version of the agreement, dated February 24 and seen by the FT, would establish a fund into which Ukraine would contribute 50 per cent of proceeds from the “future monetisation” of state-owned mineral resources, including oil and gas, and associated logistics. The fund would invest in projects in Ukraine.

It excludes mineral resources that already contribute to Ukrainian government coffers, meaning it would not cover the existing activities of Naftogaz or Ukrnafta, Ukraine’s largest gas and oil producers.

However, the agreement omits any reference to US security guarantees which Kyiv had originally insisted on in return for agreeing to the deal.

It also leaves crucial questions such as the size of the US stake in the fund and the terms of “joint ownership” deals to be thrashed out in follow-up agreements.

After three years in which the US was Kyiv’s primary military aid donor, Trump has overturned Washington’s policy by opening bilateral talks with Russia, without any European allies or Ukraine at the table.

Ukrainian officials said the deal had been approved by the justice, economy and foreign ministers.


The Trump administration’s initial sweeping proposal called for a reconstruction investment fund in which the US “maintains 100 per cent financial interest”.

Ukraine would contribute 50 per cent of the fund’s revenue from mineral resources extraction, including oil and gas and associated infrastructure, up to a maximum of $500bn.

Those terms, described as unacceptable by Ukrainian officials, have been removed from the final draft.

The mandate for the fund to invest in Ukraine is a further change Kyiv had sought. The document states the US will back Ukraine’s economic development into the future.

Ukrainian officials added the deal was just a “framework agreement” and that no revenue would change hands until the fund was in place, allowing them time to iron out any potential disagreements. Among the outstanding issues is to agree the jurisdiction of the agreement.

Zelenskyy’s government will also have to seek approval from Ukraine’s parliament, where opposition MPs have signalled they will at the very least have a heated debate before ratifying such a deal.

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said on Tuesday it was “critical that this deal is signed”, though she did not provide an update on the talks.

Additional reporting by James Politi and Felicia Schwartz in Washington


Ja tässä YLE:n arviointia diiliin liittyen:
 
Onko USA:n Ukrainalle osoittama ase- ja muu apu ollut puolustustaistelun jatkamiseen välttämätöntä sekä absoluuttisissa että suhteellisissa määrissä? Kyllä. Tästä ei vähäisintäkään epäilystä voi olla.

Se taas, kuinka tämä on USA:n talouteen vaikuttanut "miinusmerkkisesti". Olisi varmaankin hyvä johonkin yhteismitalliseen suhteuttaa, pohdittaessa tekeillä olevan diilin oikeutusta? Mikäli tuo siis Ukrainalle merkittävästi epäedulliseen kallistuisi. Tässä yksi näkökulma (per valtio, mukana ei EU:n kautta toimitettua apua).

1740554590452.webp


Tässä FT:n Martin Wolfin kriittinen mielipidekirjoitus "diilinteon taiteesta". Ylläolevaa sivuten:

© James Ferguson
The US is now the enemy of the west on x (opens in a new window)

“Freedom and independence are today in jeopardy the world over. If the forces of conquest are not successfully resisted and defeated there will be no freedom, no independence and no opportunity for freedom for any nation.” Thus did Franklin Delano Roosevelt commemorate the first anniversary of the Atlantic Charter, which had been agreed between him and Winston Churchill on August 14 1941. Half a century later, with the fall of the Soviet Union, it was at least reasonable to hope that these ideals might be realised across much of the globe. That was not to be. Today, not only are autocracies increasingly confident. The US is moving to their side. That is the lesson of the last two weeks. Freedom is not in as much danger as it was in 1942. Yet the dangers are very real.

Three events stand out. The first was a speech on February 12 by Donald Trump’s secretary of defence, Pete Hegseth, to the Ukraine Defense Contact Group at Nato in which he told the Europeans that they were now on their own. America was now principally concerned with its own borders and China. In sum: “Safeguarding European security must be an imperative for European members of Nato. As part of this Europe must provide the overwhelming share of future lethal and non-lethal aid to Ukraine.”


The second was a speech by JD Vance, vice-president of the US, at the Munich Security Conference on February 14 in which he declared that “what I worry about is the threat from within, the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values — values shared with the United States of America”. An example he gave of such a threat was that “the Romanian government had just annulled an entire election”. To this one might respond that Europeans know better than Americans what happens when the enemies of freedom come to power through elections. But they also know that his boss, Trump himself, sought to annul the outcome of the presidential election four years ago. “Pots”, “kettles” and “black” come to mind.


The third and most revealing event is the negotiation over the future of Ukraine. Hegseth had of course already accepted Putin’s most important conditions by declaring that Ukraine’s borders would not be re-established and it could not join Nato. But this was just the beginning. The negotiations have been conducted between the US and Russia over the heads of the Europeans, even though the latter have been ordered to make any deal secure, and, outrageously, of Ukraine itself, whose people have borne the brunt of Vladimir Putin’s three years of aggression. Yet now, insists the US, Russia was not the aggressor. On the contrary, Ukraine started the war. To underline the split from Europe, the US voted for a resolution in the UN Security Council alongside Russia and China, while France, the UK and other Europeans abstained. The “west” is dead.


Trump also declared that Volodymyr Zelenskyy was a “dictator”, a term he does not use for Putin, who is one. His justification for this abuse is that Ukraine’s president had not held elections. How, one wonders, were elections to be held in the middle of a war, with substantial parts of the country under a brutal occupation?

All too characteristically, Trump has also proposed a property deal. According to Zelenskyy, US Treasury secretary Scott Bessent’s original proposal demanded 50 per cent of the rights to the country’s rare earth and critical minerals in exchange for past military assistance, and did not contain any offers of future assistance.


Arguably, for Trump, “dictator” may be a term of commendation, not condemnation. Again, for him, owning a valuable asset in another country might be the only reason to protect it. Even so, demanding a vast sum from a poor country that has been the victim of an unprovoked aggression is outrageous, particularly when Ukraine must rebuild. It is worse that the value of US demands was some four times its assistance. Moreover, according to the Kiel Institute’s Ukraine Support Tracker, Europeans provided more assistance than the US, which made just 31 per cent of total bilateral commitments and 41 per cent of military commitments to Ukraine between January 2022 and December 2024. Yet where are they in these negotiations? Nowhere. Trump is deciding for Ukraine and Europe, on his own. (See charts.)


In all, the US has spent just 0.19 per cent of GDP on military assistance for Ukraine. This is trivial, particularly in comparison with the cost of its previous wars. In return, it has gained the humiliation of what was once thought to be a powerful enemy and the vindication of the ideals of liberal democracy, for which Ukrainians are fighting and the US once fought.

These past two weeks then have made two things clear. The first is that the US has decided to abandon the role in the world it assumed during the second world war. With Trump back in the White House, it has decided instead to become just another great power, indifferent to anything but its short-term interests, especially its material interests. This leaves the causes it upheld in limbo, including the rights of small countries and democracy itself. This also fits with what is happening inside the US, where the state created by the New Deal and the law-governed society created by the constitution are both in danger of destruction.


In response, Europe will either rise to the occasion or disintegrate. Europeans will need to create far stronger co-operation embedded in a robust framework of liberal and democratic norms. If they do not, they will be picked to pieces by the world’s great powers. They must start by saving Ukraine from Putin’s malevolence.
 
USA on tässä tekemässä Afganistan Kakkosta. Trump oli räätälöimässä tuota katastrofia aikoinaan: kaikkiin vastustajan vaatimuksiin suostutaan ja tehdään Diili, jossa vastapuolen ei tarvitse pitää kiinni. Ainoa vastutus tulee Euroopasta ja itse Ukrainasta, joilla molemmilla on paljon pelissä. Afganistanissakaan vallassaolevia ei huolittu neuvotteluihin. Jenkeistä ei ole mihinkään eikä heihin ole luottamista. Vastapuolelta vaaditaan sitkeyttä ja tappioiden kestämistä; loppupeleissä annetaan periksi ja vastapuoli saa haluamansa.
 
Kyiv Independent saanut haltuunsa USA:n ja Ukrainan välisen mineraalisopimuksen. Teksti spoilerissa.

The full text is as follows:

BILATERAL AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR A RECONSTRUCTION INVESTMENT FUND

WHEREAS the United States of America has provided significant financial and material support to Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022;

WHEREAS the American people desire to invest alongside Ukraine in a free, sovereign and secure Ukraine;

WHEREAS the United States of America and Ukraine desire a lasting peace in Ukraine and a durable partnership between their two peoples and governments;

WHEREAS the United States of America and Ukraine recognize the contribution that Ukraine has made to strengthening international peace and security by voluntarily abandoning the world's third largest arsenal of nuclear weapons;

WHEREAS the United States of America and Ukraine wish to ensure that those States and other persons that have acted adversely to Ukraine in the conflict do not benefit from the reconstruction of Ukraine following a lasting peace;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Ukraine (each, a “Participant”) hereby enter into this Bilateral Agreement Establishing Terms and Conditions for a Reconstruction Investment Fund to deepen the partnership between the United States of America and Ukraine, as set forth herein.

In talks with Russia, Trump repeats his Afghanistan playbook


1. The Governments of Ukraine and the United States of America, with the aim of achieving lasting peace in Ukraine, intend to establish a Reconstruction Investment Fund (Fund), partnering in the Fund through joint ownership, to be further defined in the Fund Agreement. Joint ownership will take into consideration the actual contributions of the Participants as defined in Sections 3 and 4. The Fund will be jointly managed by representatives of the Government of Ukraine and the Government of the United States of America. More detailed terms pertaining to the Fund’s governance and operation will be set forth in a subsequent agreement (the Fund Agreement) to be negotiated promptly after the conclusion of this Bilateral Agreement. The maximum percentage of ownership of the Fund’s equity and financial interests to be held by the Government of the United States of America and the decision-making authority of the representatives of the Government of the United States of America will be to the extent permissible under applicable United States laws.

Neither Participant will sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of, directly or indirectly, any portion of its interest in the Fund without the prior written consent of the other Participant.

2. The Fund will collect and reinvest revenues contributed to the Fund, minus expenses incurred by the Fund, and will earn income from the future monetization of all relevant Ukrainian Government-owned natural resource assets (whether owned directly or indirectly by the Ukrainian Government), as defined in Section 3

3. The Government of Ukraine will contribute to the Fund 50 percent of all revenues earned from the future monetization of all relevant Ukrainian Government-owned natural resource assets (whether owned directly or indirectly by the Ukrainian Government), defined as deposits of minerals, hydrocarbons, oil, natural gas, and other extractable materials, and other infrastructure relevant to natural resource assets (such as liquified natural gas terminals and port infrastructure) as agreed by both Participants, as may be further described in the Fund Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, such future sources of revenues do not include the current sources of revenues which are already part of the general budget revenues of Ukraine. Timeline, scope and sustainability of contributions will be further defined in the Fund Agreement.

The Fund, in its sole discretion, may credit or return to the Government of Ukraine actual expenses incurred by the newly developed projects from which the Fund receives revenues.

Contributions made to the Fund will be reinvested at least annually in Ukraine to promote the safety, security and prosperity of Ukraine, to be further defined in the Fund Agreement. The Fund Agreement will also provide for future distributions.

Explainer: Did Trump lie about $350 billion aid to Ukraine, and does Kyiv have to repay it?


4. Subject to applicable United States law, the Government of the United States of America will maintain a long-term financial commitment to the development of a stable and economically prosperous Ukraine. Further contributions may be comprised of funds, financial instruments, and other tangible and intangible assets critical for the reconstruction of Ukraine.

5. The Fund's investment process will be designed so as to invest in projects in Ukraine and attract investments to increase the development, processing and monetization of all public and private Ukrainian assets including, but not limited to, deposits of minerals, hydrocarbons, oil, natural gas, and other extractable materials, infrastructure, ports, and state-owned enterprises as may be further described in the Fund Agreement. The Government of the United States of America and the Government of Ukraine intend that the investment process will lead to opportunities for distribution of additional funds and greater reinvestment, to ensure the sufficient supply of capital for the reconstruction of Ukraine as set out in the Fund Agreement.

The Participants reserve the right to take such action as necessary to protect and maximize the value of their economic interests in the Fund.

6. The Fund Agreement will include appropriate representations and warranties, including those necessary to ensure that any obligations the Government of Ukraine may have to third parties, or such obligations that it may undertake in the future, do not sell, convey, transfer pledge, or otherwise encumber the Government of Ukraine’s contributions to the Fund or the assets from which such contributions are derived, or the Fund’s disposition of funds.

In drafting the Fund Agreement, the Participants will strive to avoid conflicts with Ukraine’s obligations under its accession to the European Union or its obligations under arrangements with international financial institutions and other official creditors.

7. The Fund Agreement will provide, inter alia, an acknowledgment that both the Fund Agreement and the activities provided for therein are commercial in nature.

The Fund agreement shall be ratified by the Parliament of Ukraine according to the Law of Ukraine "On International Treaties of Ukraine."

Russia targets Ukraine’s supply lines in Kursk as both cling to gains ahead of peace talks


8. The Fund Agreement will pay particular attention to the control mechanisms that make it impossible to weaken, violate or circumvent sanctions and other restrictive measures.

9. The text of the Fund Agreement will be developed without delay by working groups chaired by authorized representatives of the Government of Ukraine and the Government of the United States of America. Contact persons responsible for preparing the Fund Agreement on the basis of this Bilateral Agreement are: from the Government of the United States of America: the Department of the Treasury; from the Government of Ukraine: Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Economy.

10. This Bilateral Agreement and the Fund Agreement will constitute integral elements of the architecture of bilateral and multilateral agreements, as well as concrete steps to establish lasting peace, and to strengthen economic security resilience and reflect the objectives set forth in the preamble to this Bilateral Agreement.

The Government of the United States of America supports Ukraine’s efforts to obtain security guarantees needed to establish lasting peace. Participants will seek to identify any necessary steps to protect mutual investments, as defined in the Fund Agreement.

11. This Bilateral Agreement is binding and will be implemented by each Participant according to its domestic procedures. The Government of the United States of America and the Government of Ukraine commit to proceed forthwith to negotiate the Fund Agreement.

 
Back
Top