The Duran Podcast - Terrible deal. Zelensky gives Ukraine resources to US

Episode Date: February 28, 2025

Terrible deal. Zelensky gives Ukraine resources to US

All right, Alexander, let's talk about the mineral deal, the rare earth mineral deal, but it's actually a mineral resources deal, if you can even call it a deal. But it covers rare earth, okay, but it also covers oil, gas, and logistics ports. So, I mean, it's pretty much covering all of Ukraine's resources. And so we're most likely going to get a signature from Zelensky. He wants to do it in Trump's presence. And Trump is saying that this mineral deal is going to be good for Ukraine. No security guarantees, but it provides security in the fact that according to Trump,

according to his statements, the fact that U.S. business will be in Ukraine and no one's going to mess with Ukraine if U.S. investment and business is in Ukraine. So that's the security guarantee that's implied in this arrangement. So what are your thoughts with this rare earth minerals deal, which is actually minerals and resources and just about everything in Ukraine? It's a terrible deal. they took off, I mean, they amended it, they took off the 500 billion cap, all of that stuff. But it's a terrible deal. But it looks like it's going to be signed unless something happens. Anyway, what are your thoughts?

Well, the first thing to say is that it is the most bizarre, the most extraordinary document in terms I have ever seen. We will come to that shortly. I'd like to just say a few things because, you know, I've seen, I've gone, I've read many treaties in my time. work through many commercial contracts. I've seen all sorts of things of this guy. I've never seen anything like this deal in my life. That's the first thing. This document, maybe I should say, in my life.

But there's one thing I really do want to address first, which is that a lot of the narrative that we've been hearing over the last couple of days is that this document is actually better for Ukraine than the document that was presented to Ukraine by Vance and Rubio to Zelensky at the Munich Security Conference and would Scott Bassett had tried to get Zelensky to agree to when he went to Kiev. Now, I actually think this is completely untrue. I think this is much worse. If I was, if I was, you know, an economic advisor to Zelensky, I would say this deal is, Far worse than the previous one.

All right. I mean, you're going to set up a fund. And according to the previous deal, the United States would get, apparently, would own it 100%. And now it's only going to own 50%. But this $500 billion, $500 billion cap that people were talking about was at least a cap. It meant that, you know, once the United States got its $500 billion. presumably would have walked away, and this arrangement would have ended, and Ukraine would have been able to move forward and sort out its own future as it wanted. And maybe if you'd sort of

wanted to negotiate about that, you could have reduced it, you could have found some way around it and all up, or something of that kind. Now that cap has been removed. So far as I could tell, reading this document, this arrangement is going to continue indefinitely. So forever, in perpetuity, Ukraine is supposed to give 50% of the profits from exploitation of its resources to the United States. I mean, you know, there is no end point. when this apparently stops. So how people could see this as a better deal than the one that was offered to Zelensky before,

I am completely unable to see. That is my first point. The second point is that this isn't in any conceivable sense, even a workable deal. I mean, usually when agreements of this kind, when countries move towards agreements, of this kind. When that happens, firstly, you get some kind of statement of agreement, points of agreement. The United States and Ukraine want to work together to develop Ukraine's resources. So there's points of agreement about that. Then there's all kinds of contracts agreed that there There is proper debate about how mechanisms are going to be set up.

There's pricing formulas. There's a list of the resources that are actually going to be exploited and what they are and what their presumed value is. There's nothing of that here. There's absolutely nothing. It's just incredibly vague. It appears on its face to give the United States the right. to anything it wants, anywhere in Ukraine.

As I said, basically in perpetuity, manufacturing isn't covered. But then what manufacturing does Ukraine realistically have now? So, I mean, the whole thing is just incredible. Supports, logistics. The United States has been given a perpetual lien over everything that Ukraine has. And within this agreement, within this agreement, there are all sorts of political provisions, which would have no place usually in an agreement of this economic nature. So we have a statement that Ukraine gave away its nuclear weapons back in whenever it was in the 90s.

We've already discussed this many times. That clearly was inserted at Zelensky's insistence. it's completely irrelevant to an economic deal of this nature. And we have this reference to United States supporting Ukraine in obtaining security guarantees, which, of course, ultimately means that the United States is not going to give security guarantees, because why would it support Ukraine and getting security guarantees from itself? I mean, that is illogical. Other people are supposed to give Ukraine for security guarantees.

But why is that even there? I mean, usually, usually you would have this. If there was any question of security guarantees, it would be in a completely separate document. And since we're talking about security guarantees, if the United States were indeed giving security guarantees in a document to Ukraine, an actual situation. security guarantee that would elevate this to a treaty and that kind of treaty would have to be ratified by the Senate because it would make a military commitment to Ukraine on behalf of the United States. This apparently is not going to be put to the Senate. And the Ukrainians themselves

are telling us it's not going to even be ratified by the Ukrainian parliament. So this is the weirdest, most bizarre document I had ever seen in my life. Basically, what it is doing is Zelensky is giving Ukraine away to the Americans for nothing. He's getting nothing back. Whether the Americans will get anything out of it, of course, is a completely different matter. Because this is so vague and difficult to understand. And as I said, none of the institutions that have been set out there, this fund, who's going to operate this fund? How is it going to, where is it going to be based?

It's going to be based in Kiev, in Washington, where is it? But whatever. But on its face, as I said, this gives the whole of Ukraine all its, well, half of its resources in perpetuity to the United States in return for nothing. Yeah. The agreement's published now. Just I just want to tell everybody that if you want to find the agreement in full, you can now find it on the internet before the information.

we were working off of was information from Financial Times or Bloomberg or New York Times. But now the actual agreement has been published. I've had employment contracts that are longer than this agreement. I mean, really, I've had employment contracts that are longer than this thing. The terms and conditions on websites are longer and more detailed than this agreement. if you can even call it an agreement. So to be fair, to be fair to some of the statements that have been made by by U.S. officials and Ukraine officials from the reporting of the New York Times in Bloomberg, they do tell these outlets that they will negotiate many of the details in the future. That's what they say.

Okay, whatever. Maybe they will. Maybe they will negotiate all the details in the future. But, you know, this document is very, very sparse, very short, sparse, not detailed at all. No. Exactly. Okay, answer that and then also answer the question, why then? What's the purpose of this then?

Well, exactly. I mean, on its face, this thing is unworkable. And logically, if there are going to be further agreements behind this, which would be presumably the real agreements, in any rational world, those would take years to negotiate. I mean, this kind of, you know, relationship. Giving away your country. Giving away your country. But I mean, even then, I mean, you know, you would need, I mean, because bear of mind property rights, what kinds of people presumably are going to be involved?

As I said, you're going to be looking at pricing formulas, you're going to be looking at all kinds of things. But if this is done properly, you know, once the lawyers get to it, I mean, you would have agreements that are thousands of thousands of pages long. which would take an enormously long time to negotiate. I mean, probably years. And I didn't have an exaggeration. So why do it?

Well, I'm going to make a few quick observations. Firstly, whether Trump has thought this out, I am not absolutely sure, but this is a real blow to Europe. Because the Europeans are still talking about bringing Ukraine in Europe. to the EU. What, Ukraine? I mean, if this deal is put into place, if it's actually implemented in any kind of way, then the Ukrainian economy is basically mortgaged to the Americans. So, the Americans would be a stakeholder and they would presumably have a big role in any future negotiations with the EU about Ukraine's EU entry. I don't think anybody's thought about this.

I've not seen this discussed in any place, but logically, that is the case. I mean, I've looked at EU documents. I've seen how they work. I mean, how is this in any way, for example, compatible with European law, with the Aki? I mean, it's unknown to me. So it might be, to some extent, it might have been intended a bit of a bit of, have spoken this, I don't know. But, you know, what is the point of this? What is the point of this, as you absolutely rightly say, on its face, worthless piece of paper? Well, there is something

about Ukraine at the moment that is causing people to come away with worthless pieces of paper. I mean, Starmor just in a 100-year treaty with Ukraine. Now we have this mineral deal with Ukraine, which isn't a deal or a contract or a treaty or any of those sort of things. But I suppose You could say that it gives each side something symbolic that they can show. So the Americans have now got Ukraine to acknowledge, and it is in the recitals, that the United States has invested a huge amount of money in Ukraine, and that Ukraine has some kind of obligation to return it. Zelensky talks about the fact that Ukraine has not incurred any debts, but

basically that is how this document treats them. So that shows to the American people that enables Trump to say, look, we're getting a return, or at least the Ukrainians are promising us a return on that. They're acknowledging that we have provided them that kind of help. And that does give the Americans perhaps more leverage over Ukraine going forward. That's the first thing. And for Zelensky, and I think this is the reason Zelensky is pushing this thing and why he first proposed this minerals thing in the first place, is that he's still hoping in some way to get the Americans to come in, invest in Ukraine. And then he's going to say, you must protect your investment. And that must mean that you're going to have to provide this at some point with some kind of security guarantees. So this is what this is all about.

It's not really about extracting resources, at least not in the minds of those who signed it. So that might be its long-term effect. But it's more about that. I think, by the way, Zelensky here is profoundly wrong. The United States has invested heavily in many countries, in South Vietnam, in Afghanistan, and it has been prepared to walk away. These investments are never going to be realized. I mean, even if all of the contracts are agreed, if they're signed, if they're worked out properly,

you still have to build the plant, create the factories, establish the mines, secure the peace, get Ukraine's infrastructure operating. That is a project of 10, 20 years. before the United States would realistically start to see any of this money. So the Americans can absolutely walk away from this if they want to. That's the truth of it. Now, rebuild the entire country of Ukraine. That's what the U.S. is going to do while ignoring the United States, maybe.

I mean, but Trump ran on an America first policy. So I don't know how Americans are going to feel about this. But I agree with you. They left 80 billion in weapons in Afghanistan. They just walked away from it overnight. Yeah. Overnight, the base was there. The next day, everything was shut down and they were gone.

Yeah. So, I mean, if the United States wants to walk away from this, they can absolutely walk away from this. But, you know, I get back to the question, walk away from what? I mean, what are they walking away from? They own Ukraine now, or do they own Ukraine? I mean, they do own, according to this, effectively, they do own Ukraine. But in truth, this is a piece of paper. That is the one it is.

So what is the purpose of this for Trump? Or is there no purpose? Is this a distraction? By the way, no one talks about the fact that I just want to say this. I always forget to mention this. No one talks about the fact that Ukraine has something like 35 security guarantees that they signed over the past couple of years. So it's all these countries.

They have all these security guarantees. I remember they were bragging about all these security guarantees. They had these big signing events. including one with Britain. Yeah, Britain, Estonia, Lithuania, France. I can't even think the United States as well. Yeah, absolutely. They had a security guarantee signing with the United States and with Biden.

I remember all of that. I think that was the event where Biden called Zelensky Putin. I remember that. Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, you know, my point is, or my question is what is the point to all of this? Is it a Trump distraction? Yeah.

Is that the reason that we have this, this whole thing? Is it, is it a way for Trump? Does he believe that he can take this document to the Russians and use it as leverage? Yes. And say, okay, well, now I own Ukraine. Now I have the, the oil and the gas. And now I have the port of Odessa. It's under my control.

So let's, let's deal. Or does he, or is this a way for Trump to take this document to the Russians and say, okay, now I own Ukraine. I have the old of the gas in Odessa. Let's resolve this problem with the conflict and let's do business together. I mean, does he want to use this for leverage and be tough in negotiations? Or does he want to use this so that he can work together with the Russians? Or is this just all smoke and mirrors in just one big media marketing distraction? I think mostly it is smoke and mirrors. But I also think, again, it's Donald Trump putting Zelensky in his place, which is, I think, an important thing. I mean, if you follow Trump, I mean, he likes,

this is very much his approach. He likes to establish psychological dominance over someone. And this is basically what he's doing with Zelensky. He's basically browbeat in Zelensky into signing this piece of paper, which basically hands over Ukraine. the United States. And that puts Zelensky in a weak position relative to Trump, which gives Trump leverage over Zelensky. It doesn't give Trump any leverage over the Russians. If he comes along to the Russians and waives this piece of paper to them, and by the way, the Russians know all about contracts. I mean, they negotiate massive contracts. I mean, I've seen some of the paperwork on power of Siberia 1, for example, on the Nica Deli, it's enormous. And I've seen,

some of the documents on Nord Stream, and some of which are publicly available. You can find them, by the way. And they are even more enormous. I mean, they are huge. If he comes along and shows the Russians in a negotiation, this piece of paper and says, this means I own Ukraine, they'll just laugh at him. That's what they would do. Well, the United States also also knows, Musk must know contracts.

Bessett knows contracts. Trump knows contracts. I mean, the U.S. are the best at contracts. They are the best at car. The same argument can be made for the U.S. So obviously they see this. Yeah.

And what do they? I mean, they know this isn't. Yes. The real deal. I mean, absolutely. So this is why I come back to what I said. I think this is basically Trump putting Zelensky in his place. Showing to Zelensky, look, I don't just, I'm not just supporting you. I own you.

you can't ultimately go against me because you've had all of this money from me and the Ukrainians have now acknowledged that, even though Zelensky winds on about how these were grants and not debts. And you've just signed this piece of paper handing over your country to me, which means that I don't just own your country. I also own you. So I think this is what this is all about. It's very tough, actually. You could even say it's cruel, in some ways, but it does put Trump in a strong position relative to Zelensky, given that it is Zelensky coup as the Americans, obviously by now know is the major obstacle to any successful negotiation with the Russians. I own you and it puts the US in a strong position to what ed's. I think this is where, this is the question.

To what ed? Okay, so now Trump says I own you. I own the country. I own you. What's the end goal that Trump wants to get to? The end goal, I'm absolutely convinced there's a deal with the Russians. I mean, he won't, but he wants this deal to be negotiated by Ukraine rather than directly the United States.

But he owns Ukraine now. But now he owns Ukraine. So that gives him, as I said, leverage, leverage over Zelensky. So if Zelensky says, I don't want to make. negotiate with the Russians. The Americans come along and say to him, you've got to negotiate with the Russians. You've come to all these Greens. We've given us a lien, in effect, over all of your economy in order to protect this right, this right that we have over your country, this ownership that we have over your country. You are under no, you have, you have to do

what we want you to do, because if you don't, well, you're breaking your agreement with us, and there will be consequences. Okay, by final question, what does the U.S. want out of the deal with Russia? Do you have any ideas? Because Trump did say some interesting things. He talked about how the U.S. is going to be on this land in Ukraine. I mentioned how he talked about U.S. businesses in Ukraine, and that means that the Russians will not mess with Ukraine.

He talked about getting, when he was asked by a reporter, he talked about getting some of the trying, trying to get some of the territory back. Though he said it's going to be hard, but he did talk about trying to get some of the territory back for Ukraine. I mean, what is, he says stuff which seems to to pull away from Istanbul Plus. Let's just say that. I mean, it's a negotiation, so understood. But what does Trump? want in a negotiation with Russia. Does he want a quick solution? Because a quick solution would be Istanbul Plus. Or does he want a long negotiation? And does he want to try to actually do some of the

things that he said during the cabinet meeting that he does want to get some territory back or that he does want to put U.S. businesses on the ground in Ukraine so that the Russian military can't do anything? I mean, U.S. businesses, U.S. people in Odessa. I think this would, this would, I don't understand how the Russians would be able to accept such a thing. But I don't know. At the moment, they wouldn't. To be honest, I can't imagine U.S. businesses going to Odessa. I mean, bear in mind.

I'm simplifying it. I'm simplifying it a lot. Absolutely. But I mean, bear in mind, there's been all sorts of attempts to get European businesses to invest in Ukraine. and they're not doing so. So, I mean, American businesses are not going to go into Ukraine until the war is ended. So what I think Trump basically wants to do is he wants to do a deal with the Russians. He wants to end the war.

He wants to normalize relations with the Russians. He wants to lift sanctions. And he's made all that fairly clear by now. And ultimately, he wants to do a long-term deal with the Russians, which will mean that the Russians agree to the Americans having some kind of right. in whatever Ukraine is left. And long-term economic rights, mineral rights, ports and things of that kind, in whatever Ukraine is left, and perhaps also having rights in the Arctic, in Russia itself, and that

sort of thing. And the objective always is, I think, to put the United States in a better economic position. That's how Trump would say it, but also to draw the Russians to some extent away from China. to obtain and to obtain raw materials, minerals, special metals, some types of rare earths, of which China at the moment has a monocle. A final question. How does Russia feel about this? How would Russia feel about this enriching the United States or coming to some sort

of an agreement where the U.S. benefits from all of this? when at the end of the day, it was the United States that started all of this. I think this is going to be a very, very hard sell in Moscow. I think some people in Moscow would probably go along with it. Perhaps Putin would. I think his investment chief, Kiril Dimitriyev, who worked in Wall Street, by the way, probably would. But I think at a sort of more popular level, this wouldn't go down well at all, just saying. So, and I don't think Putin, can people underestimate this?

I don't think Putin is going to trade this away very, very easily. I've come back to what I've been saying before in many places. You want to negotiate these kind of things with the Russians. By all means, try. But they're very, very tough negotiators. And, you know, they, if you want to go down this sort of route, they would almost certainly demand economic concessions, big economic concessions in return. Now, I don't just mean, you know, concessions about lifting sanctions, but probably about

rights for Russia to trade in the United States and things of that kind, things which the United States has never been prepared to concede up to now. Why does the Trump administration keep on saying that they're very close to a deal? Even Levitt the other day said that they're very close to a deal and both sides, Russia and Ukraine are going to leave the deal a little bit unhappy. I mean, why do they keep on going down this route, ceasefire, close to a deal, ceasefire, close to a deal. I mean, they keep on saying all this stuff. And Russia refutes this, but they keep out saying it. Yes. Is there something that we don't know?

Well, I think they're partly doing this in order to keep everybody off balance, to keep the Europeans off balance because the Europeans are running around asking themselves, what are the Americans up to? Is this going faster and further than we know? It's keeping the Ukrainians very nervous and off balance too. And it's perhaps preventing opposition crystallizing to this policy within the United States itself. Because remember, Ukraine has its supporters in the United States. So you don't want to give them time to organize and oppose this. But of course, it doesn't work with one critical. party, which is the Russians. The Russians have made it very clear that they're not going to be rushed or be rushed into any sort of agreements. They are sticking firmly by Istanbul Plus.

They've restated all of that in several comments. And as I said before, talking about the fact that a deal is going to be made quickly is going to be seen in Moscow as a sign that Trump needs a deal, which gives Russia leverage over him. All right, we will end the video there, the durand.orgas.com. We are on Rumble, Odyssey, but shoot, telegram, Rockfin, and X. Go to the Duran Shop, pick up some merch like what we are wearing in this video. Update.

The link is in the description box down below. Take care.