No. of Recommendations: 3
With your statement above you have shifted the time frame to Ukraine's enhancing negotiating position prior to finalizing a peace deal. As someone pointed out (it probably was you since it made sense) Trumps economic partnership over minerals would provide insufficient deterrence to the Ruskies. I agree with that assessment and so does Zelensky who rightly rejected the "minerals only deal now, security later" plan offered by Trump. What I can't figure out is why would Zelensky use the Oval Office event to raise that objection in public.al - and all of the liberals - are making a singular mistake: they're all talking as if there's a cease-fire already, which is the point you alluded to above. The problem is,
there is no such deal.
Of paramount importance now is generating some kind of framework to get both sides to the bargaining table.
Here, this has gone uncommented on:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/24/eu-s...EU spends more on Russian oil and gas than financial aid to Ukraine – report
Europe estimated to have bought €22bn of fossil fuels from Russia in 2024 but gave €19bn to support KyivGet that?
The idiot Europeans are still paying Russia for oil and gas.
Trump's next move after Zelensky signs the minerals deal is very simple:
Go tell the Europeans they need to be prepared to cut Putin off. He'll offer them favorable terms on an oil and gas deal with US and certain other partners who would be happy to sell the euros oil and gas in exchange for the Europeans telling Putin they're willing to go cold turkey
unless he goes to the negotiating table.
With an economic framework in place for the US to support the Ukraine (and the implicit security guarantee that comes with it) and incentives for Putin (perhaps the Europeans buy a little more oil and gas from him) to agree to a reasonable cease-fire...then some progress can be made.
But at current course and speed? Not happening.
