Not "raw earths" or even rare earths but rare metals

[Vanellus]

*psst* 10% of $120bn is $12bn

Maybe not in Trumpland.

 

[ozso]

*psst* 10% of $120bn is $12bn

Yep. I must've done a dyslexic. 0.1%.

 

[ozso]

Mineral resources in the ground can't easily be exchanged for tanks or artillery shells. And it's difficult to conduct mining operations when your country is being invaded.

If they could pull billions of dollars in minerals, they would've already been doing it for a long time.

This would be less confusing if you could get your numbers correct (or at least finish the math problem). Assuming that the deal is valued in Ukrainian Hryvina rather than USD, Trump is asking for $12 billion (which is 10% of $120 billion - you got that part right), not $120 million (which is just 0.1% of $120 billion).

All that means is Trump is asking a whole lot less than 10% back. And have you ever made a mistake before?

 

[ozso]

One only needs to keep up with current events to see how this is unfolding.

What current events? Trump and Putin have supposedly been partners for at least nearly a decade.

Thanks for engaging!

You're welcome!

 

[RocksInMyHead]

If they could pull billions of dollars in minerals, they would've already been doing it for a long time.

That would depend on when they located those minerals, how the value of those minerals has changed, and Ukraine's ability to extract them. They've been dealing with a war since 2014, so that's kind of put a damper on things, and before that, they were still digging themselves out of the remnants of communism.

All that means is Trump is asking a whole lot less than 10% back.

Yep. I must've done a dyslexic. 0.1%.

If the deal was worth 5 billion Ukrainian Hryvina, yes. Again, you were right about the 10%. You were wrong about the $120 million USD.

But that's all moot, because Trump did not say that the deal was worth 500 billion Ukrainian Hryvina - you've just retconned that to try to make the numbers fit the narrative.

And have you ever made a mistake before?

Of course I have. I try not to get defensive when people try to help out by correcting them though. I'm not trying to be mean - your posts are genuinely confusing because your math is incorrect.

 

[ozso]

That would depend on when they located those minerals, how the value of those minerals has changed, and Ukraine's ability to extract them. They've been dealing with a war since 2014, so that's kind of put a damper on things, and before that, they were still digging themselves out of the remnants of communism.

So are you contending that the 50% of what the US wants is worth $500 billion US dollars rather than $500 billion Ukrainian hryvnia?

If the deal was worth 5 billion Ukrainian Hryvina, yes. Again, you were right about the 10%. You were wrong about the $120 million USD.

Okay how much is the US asking for and what's the percentage of that from $120 billion USD in aid the US has given to Ukraine?

But that's all moot, because Trump did not say that the deal was worth 500 billion Ukrainian Hryvina - you've just retconned that to try to make the numbers fit the narrative.

No I was surmising.

Of course I have. I try not to get defensive when people try to help out by correcting them though. I'm not trying to be mean - your posts are genuinely confusing because your math is incorrect.

So far it's that I typed 10 instead of 01. And you actually got a laugh out of "*psst* 10% of $120bn is $12bn", but of course that's not what you're going for. And calling me defensive was meant in the nicest way possible.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

So are you contending that the 50% of what the US wants is worth $500 billion US dollars rather than $500 billion Ukrainian hryvnia?

I'm contending that Trump said it was worth $500 billion USD. The actual value is a bit nebulous. Some people think that it could be worth that much in theory, but the reality is that it's probably worth significantly less for several reasons. First, the estimated value is largely based on Soviet-era surveys, which can be unreliable. Second, Russia currently occupies a significant portion of the richest resource areas in Ukraine. And third, with the amount of rebuilding needed, it may take a while for resource extraction to ramp up.

Okay how much is the US asking for and what's the percentage of that from $120 billion USD in aid the US has given to Ukraine?

No one knows what the US is asking for anymore, because the deal we're discussing got scrapped. And, to be clear, the final draft of the agreement had the money going into a redevelopment investment fund for reconstruction in Ukraine rather than directly to the US. It was a decent deal, though it would have relied on a separate ceasefire agreement to actually take effect. That ceasefire agreement was where the issues between Trump and Zelensky arose.

So far it's that I typed 10 instead of 01.

No, it's actually that you multiplied $24 million by 5 instead of 500. You said the deal was worth 500 billion Hryvina and that 1 billion Hyrvina is worth 24 million USD, then only multiplied that by 5 rather than 500 to get 120 million USD rather than 12 billion USD.

 

[ozso]

I'm contending that Trump said it was worth $500 billion USD. The actual value is a bit nebulous. Some people think that it could be worth that much in theory, but the reality is that it's probably worth significantly less for several reasons. First, the estimated value is largely based on Soviet-era surveys, which can be unreliable. Second, Russia currently occupies a significant portion of the richest resource areas in Ukraine. And third, with the amount of rebuilding needed, it may take a while for resource extraction to ramp up.

All I got when looking up Trump says $500 billion is him talking about some AI investment.

No one knows what the US is asking for anymore, because the deal we're discussing got scrapped. And, to be clear, the final draft of the agreement had the money going into a redevelopment investment fund for reconstruction in Ukraine rather than directly to the US. It was a decent deal, though it would have relied on a separate ceasefire agreement to actually take effect. That ceasefire agreement was where the issues between Trump and Zelensky arose.

Okay.

No, it's actually that you multiplied $24 million by 5 instead of 500. You said the deal was worth 500 billion Hryvina and that 1 billion Hyrvina is worth 24 million USD, then only multiplied that by 5 rather than 500 to get 120 million USD rather than 12 billion USD.

Oh well, I should've known better than to hammer something like that out on my phone at 5:30 AM.

 

[Vanellus]

For some odd reason (tariffs) the value of the dollar against the euro is going down, maybe Zelenskyy should bear that in mind.

 

[loveofourlord]

shhhh let him say that, now he can have 50% of their raw earth :> And they keep their rare earth metals :>

 

[MyOwnSockPuppet]

From where I'm looking it's a shakedown, pure and simple.

I'm just waiting for Taiwan to be "given an offer they can't refuse" too.

 

[Pommer]

The “minerals deal” misses the whole point that the USA assured (for over 30 years) Ukraine that we’d back them up if Russia came-a-knocking and now suddenly things changed to “what’s in it for the US?”

 

[MyOwnSockPuppet]

The “minerals deal” misses the whole point that the USA assured (for over 30 years) Ukraine that we’d back them up if Russia came-a-knocking and now suddenly things changed to “what’s in it for the US?”

The depressing thing is that I can see where the jumped-up Corporal is coming from:

"If you want real security guarantees, if you want to ensure that Vladimir Putin doesn't invade Ukraine again, the very best security guarantee is to give Americans [an] economic upside in the future of Ukraine. That is a way better security guarantee than 20,000 troops from some random country that hasn't fought a war in thirty or forty years".

Given that only two countries have said they are willing to put peacekeeping troops on the ground, both of whom also very firmly put boots on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq and put some of their own into the ground because of it, I can't see the value of the word or the gratitude of the US Government (unless it's backed up with a continuing flow of cash to them) meaning much at all, and their allies need to rapidly move away from relying on US support, or even supply.

 

[Vanellus]

The depressing thing is that I can see where the jumped-up Corporal is coming from:

"If you want real security guarantees, if you want to ensure that Vladimir Putin doesn't invade Ukraine again, the very best security guarantee is to give Americans [an] economic upside in the future of Ukraine. That is a way better security guarantee than 20,000 troops from some random country that hasn't fought a war in thirty or forty years".

Given that only two countries have said they are willing to put peacekeeping troops on the ground, both of whom also very firmly put boots on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq and put some of their own into the ground because of it, I can't see the value of the word or the gratitude of the US Government (unless it's backed up with a continuing flow of cash to them) meaning much at all, and their allies need to rapidly move away from relying on US support, or even supply.

Vance has done some weak rowing back (I didn't mean UK or France). Maybe a visit to the war graves of UK soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan during the planned Trump visit to the UK is in order. This memorial is not far from Whitehall in London:

 

[MyOwnSockPuppet]

Vance has done some weak rowing back (I didn't mean UK or France). Maybe a visit to the war graves of UK soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan during the planned Trump visit to the UK is in order. This memorial is not far from Whitehall in London:


View attachment 361949

Agreed

But if he didn't mean the UK or France then who did he mean? The list of countries who have volunteered isn't that long...

 

[Pommer]

The depressing thing is that I can see where the jumped-up Corporal is coming from:

"If you want real security guarantees, if you want to ensure that Vladimir Putin doesn't invade Ukraine again, the very best security guarantee is to give Americans [an] economic upside in the future of Ukraine. That is a way better security guarantee than 20,000 troops from some random country that hasn't fought a war in thirty or forty years".

Given that only two countries have said they are willing to put peacekeeping troops on the ground, both of whom also very firmly put boots on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq and put some of their own into the ground because of it, I can't see the value of the word or the gratitude of the US Government (unless it's backed up with a continuing flow of cash to them) meaning much at all, and their allies need to rapidly move away from relying on US support, or even supply.

The USA is tired, you see, of leading the free-world and would like to retire from the world to carve up some land that doesn’t belong to us, yet.

 

[DaisyDay]

Also according to what I looked up the "$" symbol is frequently used for Ukrainian hryvnia.

The hryvnia sign (₴) is a currency symbol, used for the Ukrainian hryvnia currency since 2004. ₴