By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Russia has confirmed the existence of a substantial economic proposal, termed the “Dmitriev package,” which reportedly outlines a roughly $12 trillion framework for economic cooperation with the U.S. This package, allegedly presented by Kirill Dmitriev, seeks relief from dollar payment system restrictions, long-term contracts for U.S. aircraft, joint ventures in oil and LNG, and cooperation in nuclear energy and mining. While the U.S. has not officially confirmed the proposals, Russia’s acknowledgment suggests these economic terms are being considered as part of a potential resolution to the conflict in Ukraine.
Read the original article here
Russia has apparently confirmed a rather astounding proposition put forth to Donald Trump, reportedly a $12 trillion deal directly linked to a resolution for the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. This figure, when juxtaposed with Russia’s pre-war GDP, which hovered around $1.84 trillion, and its relatively modest trade balance with the United States, makes the offer seem, to put it mildly, financially questionable. The sheer magnitude of this proposed sum is so colossal that it immediately raises eyebrows, and frankly, only someone with a penchant for extraordinary claims, like Trump himself, could possibly present such a proposition with a straight face. It’s almost as if it’s a fantastical offer, a playful “gazillion dollars” of sorts, but framed within a geopolitical context.
Observing how two individuals, or perhaps two powers, envision carving up the world is always a fascinating, albeit often disquieting, spectacle. The math behind a $12 trillion deal from a nation with an annual GDP of roughly $2.16 trillion, and likely facing further economic contraction, is, to say the least, bewildering. It begs the question of where such funds are expected to materialize, especially considering the current global economic climate. One might even jest about wanting to get a direct line to Trump, offering him a few trillion in exchange for a mere billion – a testament to the perceived absurdity of the offer.
There’s a strong suspicion, bordering on certainty, that the Trump administration was not, in any way, invested in assisting Ukraine or its people. This sentiment arises from the sheer implausibility of the $12 trillion deal when contrasted with the estimated total value of Ukraine itself. Current assessments suggest that all of Ukraine, including its real estate and mineral wealth, is valued at approximately $800 billion. This stark discrepancy highlights the fantastical nature of the Russian proposal.
To put it into perspective, it might have been a far more economical endeavor for Vladimir Putin to simply compensate every single Ukrainian citizen a substantial sum, say $240,000 each, and then absorb the country wholesale. Consider Ukraine’s pre-war population of around 42 million, with an average salary of $400; such a payout would have been a fraction of the proposed $12 trillion. This hypothetical scenario, especially before the atrocities that have since occurred, might have garnered significant support. Instead, the current approach appears to be a far more costly strategy, involving alleged attempts to influence Trump and clinging to fragmented territories rather than securing the entirety of Ukraine.
This entire situation brings to mind a cynical observation about how Russia, of all entities, might possess the most insight into managing individuals with sociopathic tendencies. Meanwhile, there are indications that the European Union is increasingly distancing itself from the United States, which could lessen the impact on Ukraine’s war efforts should Kyiv decide to resist further or if Trump were to react negatively. While the US remains a crucial supplier of munitions, efforts are reportedly underway to diversify these sources. The notion that achieving this $12 trillion deal would necessitate the complete undermining of the United States is a truly alarming prospect.
The suggestion is that Putin instructed Trump to present this $12 trillion as a part of a fabricated narrative of independence. This theatrical presentation is intended to provide a convenient justification for Trump’s supporters, allowing them to claim he is not beholden to external interests, but rather that everything is purely transactional. However, the underlying sentiment is that such actions point towards betrayal. The constant refrain of “But Hunter Biden and the Big Guy!” seems to be a deflection from the core issues. It’s important to note that Russia likely doesn’t possess the funds to fulfill such a pledge anyway.
This alleged proposition could offer an explanation for the perceived weakening of NATO alliances. The credibility of such a financial commitment from Russia is highly suspect, with the check likely to be deemed invalid the moment it ceases to serve Russian interests. The persistent question lingers: when will people finally recognize the possibility that he might be a Russian asset? A staggering $12 trillion would almost be sufficient to cover the projected increase in the national debt during Trump’s potential future presidency, a sobering thought.
The strategy seems to be a simple three-step process: first, invent astronomically large numbers; second, present these numbers to Trump; and third, never genuinely deliver on any of it while still claiming victory. There are reports of even more outlandish figures being floated, like a “bazillion-trillion dollars,” underscoring the sheer scale of these fantastical proposals. The underlying implication is that Russia is purportedly paying him handsomely to undermine the United States. This narrative suggests that Putin has successfully enticed Trump with an offer that has him salivating. Trump, in this scenario, has opted for what can only be described as “magic beans,” a choice some might find bewildering given the recipient.
This proposed deal, if actualized, hints at a disturbing parallel to historical geopolitical maneuvers, where Russia and the United States might carve up Ukraine much like the Soviet Union and Germany did with Poland in World War II. The origin of these trillions, whether in Zimbabwean dollars or some other devalued currency, remains a point of ridicule. It’s akin to asking for two ten-dollar bills in exchange for a five-dollar bill – a nonsensical proposition.
Russia, much like CEOs in a corporate setting, might be employing a tactic of throwing out a massive, fictitious investment figure, expecting a swift announcement of a monumental deal for America, which, in reality, benefits only the presenter. The question of Russia’s reliability in conveying factual information is paramount here. The proposed sum is particularly ironic considering Russia’s economy is roughly the size of Spain’s. This could be interpreted as “sweet murder money,” a payment for illicit activities.
The situation evokes a Churchill anecdote, where establishing someone’s identity is merely the prelude to negotiating a price. A desperate nation, facing collapse, might make an equally desperate bid for survival in the short term. However, the mathematics simply do not add up. The idea that Trump would be easily swayed by such a proposition, perhaps believing it wholeheartedly, is a concerning notion. It appears that Russia might need to thoroughly search its coffers for loose change to even consider making such a “deal.” This is a state-level issue, and Trump, however influential he may be, is not a monarch.
The value proposition of this alleged deal is questionable, comparable to a Stanley nickel or a Schrute buck. There’s even a darkly humorous suggestion that he might have already “signed” it, perhaps in exchange for the right to name a Siberian city “Trumpville,” with a misunderstanding that Siberia is in Norway, leading to a perceived double win. One cannot help but recall the substantial offshore account reportedly managed by Jared Kushner, and the speculative idea that its 1989 valuation, with subsequent investments, could reach $12 trillion by 2026, a notion that certainly raises eyebrows. The overwhelming sentiment is one of profound concern for the future: “We are So Fucked.”
The inclusion of a weapons package in such a deal is a pertinent question. The recurring desire for “ONE BILLION DOLLAR” resonates with a certain theatricality, reminiscent of fictional villains. Considering the significant impact of the US effectively excluding Russia from SWIFT in 2022, a move that highlighted the risks of relying on the petrodollar system for global stability, any potential deal involving Russia’s reintegration into SWIFT could have profound implications for Americans. The US leveraging SWIFT for economic sanctions could be viewed as a self-destructive policy. The prospect of being repaid in “zero-dollars-a-year salary plus benefits” is a stark image. Worldwide hyperinflation might be the only currency capable of covering such a sum.
The sheer scale of the numbers being discussed, $12 trillion, dwarfs even the astronomical figures of historical hyperinflationary events. The idea of “winning” and achieving unprecedented success, as Trump might claim, is juxtaposed with the reality of a nation with a $2 trillion GDP making such a gargantuan offer. The number itself appears so impossibly large that it might only be achievable over an extended period, perhaps a century. The temptation to aim for “TRILLIONS” over mere “gazillions” seems to be a motif, referencing a notorious fictional character.
The term “weak” has been used to describe the offer, suggesting it falls short of expectations, despite its immense nominal value. The ultimate outcome of geopolitical competition, especially between China and the US, might involve a struggle for finite resources, with actual warfare potentially disrupting the existing status quo. The thought of working tirelessly only to witness such vast sums being potentially squandered is a disheartening reality for many.