By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Despite a proposed minerals deal, former President Trump reportedly conditions the resumption of US aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine on President Zelenskyy’s willingness to negotiate with Russia, potentially including territorial concessions. Trump also desires Zelenskyy to pursue elections and consider stepping down. While no evidence links the intelligence pause to specific Russian attacks, officials remain optimistic about resuming full support soon, currently providing defensive intelligence only.
Read the original article here
A proposed minerals deal with Ukraine is unlikely to sway Donald Trump into resuming aid to the country, according to reports. The very notion of such a deal seems to be viewed with intense skepticism. The consensus is that any agreement would be a meaningless gesture, a mere smokescreen obscuring a deeper, more sinister agenda.
The perception is that this entire minerals deal scenario is fundamentally flawed from the outset. There’s a strong belief that Trump never intended to genuinely assist Ukraine. His purported commitment to the deal is seen as disingenuous, a cynical maneuver designed to either sabotage negotiations or humiliate Ukrainian President Zelenskyy.
The deal’s terms are deemed incredibly unfair, heavily favoring the United States and offering little in return for Ukraine’s resources. This imbalance fuels the suspicion that the agreement is not a legitimate attempt at cooperation, but rather an exploitative tactic. The sheer scale of resources being demanded raises serious questions about the deal’s feasibility and the potential for long-term extraction.
There’s a widespread belief that Trump’s motivations are far more aligned with Russia’s interests than Ukraine’s. Some suspect direct collaboration with the Kremlin, while others suggest a profound ignorance of geopolitical realities coupled with an appalling lack of judgment. Regardless of the explanation, the outcome remains the same: harm to Ukraine.
The timing of Trump’s actions, coinciding with the finalization of the minerals deal, only strengthens this perception of malicious intent. His attacks on Zelenskyy are seen as a deliberate attempt to derail any chance of success, potentially playing into Russia’s hands.
Even if the deal were to be signed, there’s no confidence it would change Trump’s behavior. His history of broken promises and unreliable dealings makes any agreement with him seem inherently risky and untrustworthy. This skepticism extends to his overall dealings, casting doubt on the credibility of future interactions with the United States.
The sentiment is that this whole minerals deal is a charade, designed to justify the cessation of aid to Ukraine while appearing to be an act of negotiation. The sheer lack of good faith displayed is considered infuriating and morally reprehensible.
Many view Trump’s actions as the epitome of bad faith bargaining, exhibiting an alarming disregard for international relations and basic decency. His supposed “art of the deal” is mocked as the “art of the fuck up,” reflecting the perceived incompetence and malevolence of his actions.
Beyond the immediate implications for Ukraine, the deal highlights broader concerns about the reliability of the United States in international affairs. The perception of Trump’s actions is fueling distrust and prompting calls for other nations to exercise caution in future dealings with the US.
The general feeling is one of profound disappointment and frustration. The lack of genuine concern for Ukraine’s plight is seen as appalling, and the apparent prioritizing of personal gain and political maneuvering over international stability is deeply disturbing. This sense of outrage is further compounded by the potential consequences of aiding Russia through inaction, with concern for wider geopolitical implications. The failure to recognize Russia’s aggression underscores a larger failure of international diplomacy and security.
The consensus is that the minerals deal, far from being a solution, is nothing more than a thinly veiled excuse for undermining Ukraine and supporting Russia’s ambitions.
Ultimately, the focus remains on the profound lack of trust in Trump’s intentions and the belief that any deal offered would be ultimately a sham, designed to serve his personal interests rather than furthering diplomatic efforts and ensuring stability in the region. The gravity of the situation and the cynicism surrounding Trump’s actions are striking and paint a dire picture of the current geopolitical landscape.