Tangle - The Ukraine minerals deal.

Episode Date: February 27, 2025

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump told reporters that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had accepted the draft of a deal that would send partial revenues from Ukraine’s rare earth minerals to the United States. Zelensky described the agreement as a “framework” and said he and Trump would be holding further discussions. The deal could be signed as soon as Friday, when Zelensky reportedly plans to visit the White House. Ad-free podcasts are here!Many listeners have been asking for an ad-free version of this podcast that they could subscribe to — and we finally launched it. You can go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today’s “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.Take the survey: What do you think of a mineral-rights deal between the U.S. and Ukraine? Let us know!You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Will Kaback, Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, and produced in conjunction with Tangle’s social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Sonic the Hedgehog 3 is now streaming on Paramount+. He is much more impressive than the hedgehog I fought previously. Dude, I'm standing right here. Sonic the Hedgehog 3 is now streaming on Paramount+. With the Fizz loyalty program, you get rewarded just for having a mobile plan. You know, for texting and stuff. And if you're not getting rewards like extra data and dollars off with your mobile plan,

you're not with Fizz. Switch today. Conditions apply, details at fizz.ca. ["Tangle"] From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. ["Tangle"] This is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon and good evening and welcome to the Tangle podcast, the place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking and a little bit

of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul. And on today's episode, we're gonna be talking about the Ukraine minerals deal, the framework of the deal that was announced, or I guess leaked this week between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Gonna share some perspectives from the left and the right and abroad as well, and then my take. But before I pass the pod over to John, I do want to give you a quick heads up that tomorrow we're going to do a little bit of navel gazing, I guess you could say. I'm going to be sharing some thoughts about some of what I've been seeing just amid the Tangle community the last few weeks. And I hope maybe restate our mission and what we're up to here in a way that offers some clarity to our readers and listeners,

who I think at times may misunderstand the point of this project and this media organization. And yeah, I'm excited to do that. So I'd keep an eye out or an ear out as it may be for that podcast dropping tomorrow and we'll have a newsletter up as well. All right. With that, I'm going to send it over to John to break down today's main story and I'll be back for my take. Thanks Isaac and welcome everybody. Here are your quick hits for today. First up, President

Donald Trump said he plans to announce 25% tariffs on goods made in the European Union in the near future. The EU responded that it would react firmly and immediately against unjustified tariffs. Separately, Trump said that his 25% tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada will go into effect on March 4th, as well as an additional 10% tariffs on Chinese imports. 2. Hamas returned the bodies of four Israeli hostages, and Israel released over 600 imprisoned Palestinians, marking the final exchange of Phase 1 of the ceasefire agreement.

3. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts paused a federal judge's order that required the Trump administration to unfreeze $2 billion in foreign aid funds to contractors after the administration asked the court for an emergency order. The group's challenging the White House's actions must now respond by midday Friday. Separately, the Trump administration said in a memo

that it plans to eliminate roughly 90% of the US agency for international developments foreign aid contracts and $60 billion in overall U.S. international assistance. Number four, President Trump told reporters that he intends to replace a visa program for foreign investors with a gold card that could be purchased for $5 million as a pathway to United States citizenship. And number five, the heads of the Office of Personnel Management told federal agencies to prepare for large-scale layoffs of federal workers in the coming months. Just a few moments ago in the Oval Office, President Trump said he is open to Ukrainian

President Volodymyr Zelensky visiting Washington later this week to sign a deal that would grant U.S. access to Ukraine's mineral reserves. This is what the president said Ukraine would receive in exchange. Three hundred and fifty billion dollars and lots of equipment and military equipment and the right to fight on. On Tuesday, President Donald Trump told reporters that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had accepted the draft of a deal that would send partial revenues from Ukraine's rare earth minerals to the United States.

Zelensky described the agreement as a framework and said that he and President Trump would be holding further discussions. The deal could be signed as soon as Friday when Zelensky reportedly plans to visit the White House. For context, Ukraine controls more than 100 major deposits of mineral resources and estimates that it has 5% of the world's critical raw materials, including graphite, titanium, lithium, and uranium, and significant deposits of rare earth metals that are used to produce weapons, wind turbines, electronics, and other products.

President Trump has pushed for a deal on resource rights in Ukraine as a precondition for further U.S. aid and security support in Ukraine's war with Russia. Earlier in February, he proposed 50 percent ownership of Ukraine's rare earth minerals as a way for the country to reimburse the U.S. for the military aid it has provided since Russia's initial attack in February 2022. Trump has also said he wants to establish a fund for Ukraine to give the United States $500 billion worth of rare earth metals and minerals. The draft agreement announced on Tuesday does not include the $500 billion stipulation, but it does create a fund that would give the U.S. 50% of revenues from 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 liquefied natural gas terminals and port infrastructure. The fund would not draw on revenue from existing mines, oil wells, and other natural resource businesses. The current iteration of the deal also does not include explicit security guarantees for Ukraine,

though it says that the U.S. government's support of Ukraine's efforts to obtain security guarantees needed to establish lasting peace. Trump suggested that any security agreement would be part of a separate deal, telling reporters, we'll be looking at general security for Ukraine later on. I don't think that's going to be a problem. There are a lot of people that want to do it, and I spoke with Russia about it. They didn't seem to have a problem with it.

Zelensky expressed optimism about the deal and said concrete steps on security guarantees would have to be negotiated jointly with the United States and Europe. The agreement comes amid a shift in U.S. policy on the war from the Trump administration. Last week, Trump called Zelensky a dictator without elections and said Ukraine should never have started the war with Russia. Those comments followed a meeting between U.S. and Russian officials in Saudi Arabia to discuss the future of the conflict. Afterwards, the countries agreed to appoint high-level teams to begin working on a path to ending the conflict in Ukraine

as soon as possible. Today, we'll share perspectives on the potential deal from the left and the and then Isaac's tape. We'll be right back after this quick break. Boy is now streaming on Paramount+. He is much more impressive than the Hedgehog I fought previously. Dude, I'm standing right here. Sonic the Hedgehog 3, now streaming on Paramount+. With the Fizz loyalty program, you get rewarded just for having a mobile plan. You know, for texting and stuff. And if you're not getting rewards like extra data and dollars off with your mobile plan, you're not with Fizz. Switch today. Conditions apply. Details at Fizz.ca.

Alright, first let's start with what the left is saying. The left objects to Trump's handling of the negotiations, arguing he is taking advantage of a weakened ally. Many support the underlying goal of the negotiations, arguing he is taking advantage of a weakened ally. Many support the underlying goal of the deal, but say Trump has needlessly acted like a bully to achieve it. The Washington Post editorial board said, the White House's Ukraine minerals plan sounds like a shakedown. The president and his top aides are now trying to cajole, coerce, and even threaten Zelensky

into signing over half of Ukraine's revenue from oil, gas, and other minerals, as well as earnings from its port worth a total of $500 billion, the board wrote. And what is Trump offering Ukraine in return? So far, not much. Trump already has nixed the idea of NATO membership for Ukraine. I don't think it's practical, he said. The deal makes no mention of any long-term security guarantees for Ukraine, and certainly not for the non-nuclear strategic deterrence that was part of Zelensky's plan.

Ukraine has held out bravely against Russia's brutal aggression. At the cost of hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded, entire towns and villages destroyed and depopulated, and basic infrastructure damaged by daily Russian missile and artillery strikes. It has been able to resist because of the steadfast support of President Joe Biden and European leaders," the board said. Now, Trump wants to reduce support for Ukraine's sovereignty to a mercantilist deal over its mineral wealth, with none of the security guarantees Ukraine needs to remain viable

in the face of a revanchist Russia. In Newsweek, Dan Perry suggested Trump's demands make the United States look like gangsters. Trump's gangster-like shakedown of Ukraine for its rare earth minerals is a breathtaking deviation from decades of American global leadership, effectively recasting the United States as a global gun-for-hire, Perry wrote.

Trump's demand seems aimed at reducing U.S. dependence on Chinese supply chains. This is not illogical, in the same way that any blackmail makes sense on paper. But America has rightly been viewed as a beacon of democracy and a protector of freedom on the global stage. When it has provided military or economic aid, this was grounded in strategic interests, security imperatives, or moral obligations, not as quid pro quo for profit.

If the U.S. only assists nations at war in exchange for financial compensation, then it ceases to be an ally. It becomes a mercenary. It sets a dangerous precedent. Today, Ukraine is asked to trade away its economic sovereignty to fend off Russian aggression. Tomorrow, another vulnerable nation might be coerced into surrendering its political autonomy, Perry said. This is not to argue that transactionalism has no place in foreign affairs.

It certainly does. For example, when the U.S. agreed to provide Israel with billions of dollars in foreign aid, it gained a strategic ally in the Middle East. However, these arrangements were not mere shakedowns. They were anchored in strategic diplomacy and geopolitical calculus. Alright that is it for what the left is saying, which brings us to what the right is saying. The right is supportive of the deal, suggesting that it serves US and Ukrainian interests. Some say Trump's handling of the negotiations showcased his understanding of geopolitical dynamics.

In Red State, Ward-Clark said Trump demonstrated the art of the deal. This appears to be not so much an agreement—bear in mind we haven't seen the actual deal yet—as just the framework of an agreement. Precisely what the United States will offer in the way of support and what we'll get out of it in return isn't completely clear, Clark wrote. This framework appears to exclude the majority of Ukraine's gas and oil production. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Here in the United States, we have ample oil and gas resources of our own,

and the various nations of Western Europe could use a friendlier source than Russia. Europe doesn't have the strength or the will to counter Russia on its own. That's why they've been seeking all along American involvement. The Biden administration was content to shovel billions into Ukraine. And it appears to be baffling Europe in general and Ukraine in particular that an American president might ask, what's in it for us, Clark said. It is perhaps belaboring the obvious to note that this deal also precludes Russian access to these strategic resources.

That's good for now. Remember that nations have no permanent friends, only permanent interests. In National Review, Dan McLaughlin asked, is Trump's minerals deal throwing Zelensky into the Briar Patch? Donald Trump has long argued that the United States should act more like an empire, or at least an acquisitive real estate tycoon, by using the leverage of its military and commercial influence to extract economically valuable concessions from countries that want access to our markets or aid in their defense, McLaughlin said.

While there is some truth to this, and something to be said for ensuring that our foreign aid, trade policy, and military alliances aren't one-way streets, this is also a simplistic view of the world, in missing how much we benefit from things like general peace in Europe and South America or a free navigation of the seas. Why would the Ukrainians welcome a deal that hands over a stake in the country's mineral wealth to Uncle Don, or Sam, because they understand that if the United States government has a materially significant stake in Ukraine, the security of Ukraine and the avoidance of any Russian threat to peaceful commerce in Ukraine becomes our business," McLaughlin wrote.

If this deal goes through, as reported, it may not matter that it doesn't commit our promises to the security of Ukraine, it would commit our interests. And that is the thing for which Zelensky and his nation are willing to pay dearly. All right, that is it for what the left and the right are saying, which brings us to what some international writers are saying. Some writers say Trump's deal sacrifices long-term stability for short-term gain. Others say the deal is the necessary price of the U.S. brokered end to the war. In the Kyiv Independent, Dmitry Kulebo wrote, Trump's rare-earth deal risks Ukraine repeating

history's mistakes. At the beginning of 1918, amid World War I, Germany and Austria-Hungary were in dire need of natural resources. Simply put, they needed grain, lard, meat, and oil to sustain their war efforts and economies. Ukraine, having recently declared independence from the Russian Empire and fighting to secure its sovereignty, possessed all these resources. Seeing an opportunity, Germany intervened," Kuleba wrote. When Germany lost World War I, its need for Ukraine disappeared.

The retreating German forces left Ukraine vulnerable and resistance to the unpopular Hetman grew, while Moscow regained strength. And now history is repeating itself. Only this time it's the United States instead of Germany, lithium instead of grain, graphite instead of lard. But unlike a century ago, there is no promise to send an army, neither the US nor NATO, to protect the resources Washington needs, Kuleba Rub. Politicians should not be at odds with each other.

The egos and resentments of politicians, the desire to destroy rivals in order to strengthen themselves, harm both the people and the state. Only Moscow benefits from internal divisions. In responsible statecraft, Ian Proud called the deal a steep but worthy price for peace. At over $11 trillion, the value of Ukraine's minerals is significant and $500 billion appears a relatively small percentage of the whole, but it is in fact a huge sum for a small, hugely indebted country like Ukraine," Proud said. Ukraine exported a meager $4.2 billion in metals in 2023, so it would take almost 120

years to pay back America, losing a vital source of export revenue in the process, which it cannot afford. So this deal is more likely about offering concessions to large U.S. companies to exploit certain fields over the longer term. Inevitably, President Zelensky is being nudged towards making a bad deal on terms less favorable than those available to him in late March 2022 at a huge cost to the country's wealth. I suspect that history will record February 12, 2025 as being the beginning of the end of this act in his stoic political career, Proud wrote.

For President Trump, however, if a ceasefire does indeed break out in the coming weeks, he may simultaneously have brokered peace and secured valuable assets for the United States. All right, let's head over to Isaac for his take. All right, that is it for what the left and the right are saying, which brings us to my take. So this is a great step forward. Let me start by swatting away some of the nonsense that I'm seeing out there. First of all, calling this plan a shakedown ignores the basic history of how it has evolved. A mineral rights deal was literally Zelinsky's idea.

It was part of the Victory Plan he released last year in which he said Ukraine could offer allies, quote, a special agreement for the joint protection of the country's critical resources, including natural resources and critical metals worth trillions of US dollars, including uranium, titanium, lithium graphite, and other strategically valuable resources. Not only that, but deals like this are also nothing new.

The pearl-clutching from the liberal class about Trump's gangster-like shakedown being a breathtaking deviation from decades of American global leadership effectively recasting the United States as a global gun for hire is actually laughable. We have the largest military in the world. We're more than a global gun for hire. We have always used our vast power to advance our interests around the world. We use our military might to defend other nations when our interests are aligned. And we've never done any of that for free. We have a checkered track record with military intervention, but throughout US history, we have also defended the right people, leaders and nations striving towards democracy and freedom.

We should be defending Ukraine, but we also don't interject in every single conflict. We don't always fight for democracy or freedom everywhere all the time. We do it when our involvement benefits us in some way. That is not new. It's not Trumpian. And acting out of self-interest in times of war is not the same as being an unprincipled mercenary. This Minerals Deal framework makes obvious sense for us and Ukraine, and is perfectly in line with similar arrangements that have been made throughout history.

If Ukraine's allies have economic interests in the country, they'll want stability. If the US depends in some way on rare earth minerals in Ukraine, the US will be upset if Russia's raining bombs down on the Donbas and we'll find a way to make it stop. That much is simple. Economic interests can produce military security.

Putting aside the US perspective, it's also a wise political move from Zelensky. On Monday, the Ukrainian president responded to nonsense from Trump and Musk about his own personal interests driving the war by offering to step down as president in exchange for peace or NATO membership, a brilliant response that immediately shut them up and made their dictator claims against him

look as silly as they are. He is good at this. Zelensky knows that funding from the US and Europe depends on elected officials approving that funding. He understands that those elected officials have to answer to voters at home who may be wondering why their roads are riddled with potholes while $50 billion is sent to support Ukraine's government. And if he can make the case for defending Ukraine in economic terms, US politicians

can sell the support to their constituents back home. On top of being wise, it's rational. Ukraine like any nation has strengths and weaknesses. Compared to other European countries, its military is a weakness and its natural resources are a strength. It makes sense to use one to improve the other. Writers suggesting Ukraine is being asked to trade away its economic sovereignty to fend off Russian aggression

could just as easily write that Ukraine is smartly trading some of its economic strength for its literal sovereignty. And let's be clear here. Zelensky does have some leverage. The United States' biggest global competitor is China, which is rich in many of the same natural resources Ukraine is. These minerals are critical for the future of all kinds of electronics and tech, from weapons to electric vehicles. The crucial details of this deal have not yet been finalized, but Trump's initial lob here was a paydown of some $500 billion in natural resources.

Zelensky says the number in the deal will be more like $90 billion. He clearly understands where the strengths of his position are. These minerals are critical for the future of all kinds of electronics and tech, from weapons to electric vehicles. The crucial details of this deal have not yet been finalized, but Trump's initial lob here was a paydown of some $500 billion in natural resources, and I think it's pretty clear he's not going to get that. Zelensky clearly understands where the strengths of his position are.

Let's also not forget that last week a lot of people were worried about Ukraine allegedly being left out of a peace deal. Now Putin is being wholly left out of these negotiations and trying to insert himself by offering up hundreds of billions of dollars or even Russia's own mineral resources, including those on lands Russia is occupying in Ukraine. If you are the Trump administration, this is a good place to be. You want Russia squirming, and you want an avenue toward a long-term win-win deal for Ukraine. As I said last week, and I've said every time we've written about this topic for the past

three years, Russia started this war. They can end it any day by leaving Ukraine, and we should never forget that Putin invaded a sovereign country on the trumped-up premise that 40 million free Ukrainians belonged to him. That much should be obvious to everyone, including the U.S. president, and it is appalling that it is apparently not. That being said, I'll judge Trump by the outcome here. The previous administration had three years to usher in a resolution to this conflict, which started on its watch in the first place. Biden did a good job rallying European allies to Ukrainian side,

and he did the right thing by pushing US lawmakers to support Ukraine in the war. If anything, with 2020 hindsight, I believe if we had more faith in Ukraine and supported them more aggressively early on in the war, it may well be over by now. Unfortunately, while the Biden administration succeeded in helping prevent the fall of Ukraine, it failed in ushering in a peace deal. Given that, I do not blame Trump or the Trump administration for taking a different tact. It would be literally insane to keep trying the same thing and expecting a new outcome. Do I wish Ukraine had more on the table like NATO membership and the return of stolen territory? Yes, I do.

Am I going to object to a deal that would end the bloodshed, improve the United States' long-term economic goals, tie Ukraine's security closely to our economic interests, and is apparently good enough for Ukraine's president? Absolutely not. We'll be right back after this quick break. FanDuel Casino Daily Jackpots guaranteed to hit by 11 p.m. with your chance at the number one feeling. Winning, which beats even the 27th best feeling saying I do. Who wants this last parachute? I do. Daily Jackpots, a chance to win with every spinner and a guaranteed winner by 11pm every day. With the Fizz loyalty program, you get rewarded just for having a mobile plan.

You know, for texting and stuff. And if you're not getting rewards like extra data and dollars off with your mobile plan, you're not with Fizz. Switch today. Conditions apply. Details at Fizz.ca. All right, that is it for my take, which brings us to your questions answered. Today's question is from a reader named Joe, who said, there have been numerous news reports that the U.S. is a net oil exporter, but the recent tariffs announced by Trump included

oil imports from Canada. If we are truly an oil exporter, why would we need to import oil from Canada? And if we do import oil from Canada, what percentage of it is our consumption? And would it be substantial enough to result in higher consumer prices, the perspective of economics, or how much revenue would be generated by Canada paying to continue those exports to the US, the perspective of the Trump administration? So for some background here, President Trump plans to levy 10% tariffs on Canada energy imports. Tariffs were delayed earlier this month,

but Trump said Monday that they will go forward next week. So to your question, yes, the United States is a net oil exporter. In 2023, the Energy Information Administration reported that the US exported roughly 10.15 million barrels per day of petroleum, which includes crude oil, hydrocarbon gas liquids, refined petroleum products such as gasoline and diesel fuel, and biofuels, while it imports roughly 8.51 million barrels per day.

It's also true that the recent increases in domestic energy production have reduced their need for oil imports. While the US consumed more energy than it produced every year from 1958 to 2018, advancements in drilling technology like fracking have driven production increases that have made us a net exporter since 2019. With that said, the U.S. is not energy independent. It still relies on oil imports to meet consumption demand. U.S. oil refineries were designed to run on a blend of different types of oil, and Canada has an abundance of heavy crude that is relatively scarce in the US but vital to these refineries operations.

Simply put, our energy infrastructure depends on the type of crude oil we import from the North. 52% of the petroleum we import comes from Canada. To your last question, if the energy tariffs go into effect, they'll likely impact consumer prices, but the size of the impact is up for debate. Some analysts have suggested that gas prices would only increase by a few cents as Canadian oil producers and U.S. refiners

would absorb most of the costs. However, others note that Canada could impose an export tax on oil as a retaliatory measure, which would drive prices up more appreciably. All right. That is it for today's reader question. I'm going to send it back to John for the rest of the pod and I'll see you guys tomorrow. And then again on Sunday for our Sunday edition, which I expect will be pretty fiery as it's my first one back since paternity leave and there's a lot to talk about.

So we'll see you then. Have a good one. Peace. Thanks, Isaac. Have a good one. Peace. Thanks Isaac. Here's your under the radar story for today, folks. On Tuesday, the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, deleted five of the largest savings it had claimed on its nascent website, tracking efforts to reduce government spending. The removed line items, which totaled roughly $10.2 billion, had been improperly accounted

for, the bulk of which came from an $8 billion immigration and customs enforcement contract actually worth $8 million. Neither the White House nor Doge has explained the deletion. Furthermore, the new largest cut on the website is a $1.9 billion Treasury Department contract that was canceled last fall. The New York Times has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. All right, next up is our numbers section. The total amount of US aid to Ukraine appropriated by Congress since Russia's invasion in 2022

is $175 billion. The estimated amount of US aid allocated to programs that directly support Ukraine is $120 billion. Of that $120 billion, the amount that has been allocated to military aid, budget support for the Ukrainian government, and humanitarian aid respectively, is $67.3 billion, $49 billion, and $3.6 billion. The estimated value of the global market for critical minerals in 2024 was $320 billion. The approximate number of mineral deposits covering 116 types of minerals in Ukraine is 20,000.

Prior to Russia's invasion, the number of mineral deposits in Ukraine that were designated as active was 3,055. The number of mineral types found in deposits in Ukraine that the U.S. Geological Survey lists as critical for America's economic development and defense is 20. The percentage of Americans who say supporting Ukraine in the war against Russia helps U.S. national security is 39%, according to a February 2025 Pew Research survey. And the percentage of Americans who say supporting Ukraine in the war against Russia hurts U.S.

national security is 31%. Alright, and last but not least, our Have a Nice Day story. Worldwide, women's athletics continues to struggle for recognition and support, an issue especially evident in Abigail Corteca-Corti's story. Corte, a female boxer from Ghana, dreamed of becoming a professional boxer despite being heavily discouraged from training by her family, culture, and community. However, with the support of her brother, coach, and a fellow boxer, she became Ghana's first female world boxing champion in 2024.

I'm a world title holder, and that confirms that what a man can do, a woman can also do," Korty said. The Associated Press has this story, and there's a link in today's episode description. Alright everybody, that is it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, please go to readtangle.com where you can sign up for a newsletter membership, podcast membership, or a bundled membership, which gets you a discount on both. Tomorrow, we're going to be publishing a piece from executive editor Isaac Saul responding

to some of the criticisms we've gotten over the past few weeks and defining what Tangle is all about. A reminder that if you want access to the Friday editions, the Sunday editions, and our full archive of newsletters and podcasts, you need to be a subscriber. In addition to tomorrow's Friday edition, Isaac and Ari will return with the Sunday podcast and I'll be back on Monday.

For the rest of the crew, this is John Moe signing off. Have an absolutely wonderful weekend, y'all. Peace. Our podcast is written by me, Isaac Saul, and edited and engineered by Duke Thomas. Our script is edited by Ari Weitzman, Will Kavak, Gellysol, and Sean Brady. The logo for our podcast was made by Magdalena Bikova, who is also our social media manager. The music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. And if you're looking for more from Tangle, please go check out our website at reedtangle.com.

That's reedtangle.com. With the Fizz loyalty program, you get rewarded just for having a mobile plan. You know, for texting and stuff. And if you're not getting rewards like extra data and dollars off with your mobile plan, you're not with Fizz. Switch today. Conditions apply. Details at Fizz.ca. Sonic the Hedgehog 3. Welcome home, my boy. He's now streaming on Paramount+. He is much more impressive than the Hedgehog I fought previously. Dude, I'm standing right here.

Sonic the Hedgehog 3, now streaming on Paramount+.