See here, the ISW, to sign up for the best updates. Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, I began to build an extensive bibliography, but I found there were many items that I could not in good conscience bring to further public attention. However, I started a folder called Suitable for Public Consumption, namely items I largely agreed with or felt would at least inform public discussion. Here is the durable url: https://tinyurl.com/EndingWarOnUkraine
All abstracts are by author unless it says MD and Notes are by MD (myself) or are quoted material from the article (I wasn’t always consistent). As the Trump/Vance administration readies itself to take office, I’m trying to give more attention to how to end the war in Ukraine. At a Happy Dog public forum sponsored by the City Club of Cleveland, I publicly proposed that part of any settlment be some kind of Guantanomo-like provision for Russia to have use of the Crimean port and the bridge from Crimea to Russia, in recognition of Russia’s legitimate need for a port in the Black Sea.
4/30/25: I’m looking forward to seeing the details of the US/Ukraine deal announced today, which must be approved by the Parliament.
4/20/25 See this substack from Tim Snyder about antisemitism in the Oval Office.
Here is the full text of the letter from Lech Walesa:
https://www.facebook.com/lechwalesa/posts/1205977244231523?ref=embed_post
After the US decision to suspend supplies to Ukraine, if the answer was in my gesture it would be "Let's do our part" not a step back. AMEN.
This is the text we signed:
Your Excellency Mr President,
We watched the report of your conversation with the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenski with fear and distaste. We consider your expectations to show respect and gratitude for the material help provided by the United States fighting Russia to Ukraine insulting. Gratitude is due to the heroic Ukrainian soldiers who shed their blood in defense of the values of the free world. They have been dying on the frontline for more than 11 years in the name of these values and independence of their Homeland, which was attacked by Putin's Russia.
We do not understand how the leader of a country that is the symbol of the free world cannot see it.
Our panic was also caused by the fact that the atmosphere in the Oval Office during this conversation reminded us of one we remember well from Security Service interrogations and from the debate rooms in Communist courts. Prosecutors and judges at the behest of the all-powerful communist political police also explained to us that they hold all the cards and we hold none. They demanded us to stop our business, arguing that thousands of innocent people suffer because of us. They deprived us of our freedoms and civil rights because we refused to cooperate with the government and our gratitude. We are shocked that Mr. President Volodymyr Zelenski treated in the same way.
The history of the 20th century shows that every time the United States wanted to keep its distance from democratic values and its European allies, it ended up being a threat to themselves. This was understood by President Woodrow Wilson, who decided to join the United States in World War I in 1917. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt understood this, deciding after the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 that the war for the defense of America would be fought not only in the Pacific, but also in Europe, in alliance with the countries attacked by the Third Reich.
We remember that without President Ronald Reagan and American financial commitment it would not have been possible to bring the collapse of the Soviet Union empire. President Reagan was aware that millions of enslaved people were suffering in Soviet Russia and the countries it conquered, including thousands of political prisoners who paid for their sacrifice in defense of democratic values with freedom. His greatness was m. in. on the fact that he without hesitation called the USSR the "Empire of Evil" and gave it a decisive fight. We won, and the statue of President Ronald Reagan stands today in Warsaw vis a vis of the US embassy.
Mr. President, material aid - military and financial - cannot be equivalent to the blood shed in the name of independence and freedom of Ukraine, Europe, as well as the whole free world. Human life is priceless, its value cannot be measured with money. Gratitude is due to those who make the sacrifice of blood and freedom. It is obvious for us, the people of "Solidarity", former political prisoners of the communist regime serving Soviet Russia.
We are calling for the United States to withdraw from the guarantees it made with the Great Britain in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which recorded a direct obligation to defend the intact borders of Ukraine in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons resources. These guarantees are unconditional: there is no word about treating such aid as an economic exchange.
Lech Wales, b. political prisoner, Solidarity leader, president of the Republic of Poland III
Mark Bailin, b. political prisoner, editor of independent publishing houses
Severn Blumstein, b. political prisoner, member of the Workers' Defense Committee
Teresa Bogucka, b. a political prisoner, activist of the democratic opposition and Solidarity
Gregory Bogut, b. political prisoner, activist of democratic opposition, independent publisher
Mark Borowik, b. political prisoner, independent publisher
Bogdan Borusewicz, b. political prisoner, leader of the underground Solidarity in Gdansk
Zbigniew Bujak, b. political prisoner, leader of the underground Solidarity in Warsaw
Władysław Frasyniuk, b. political prisoner, leader of the underground Solidarity in Wrocław
Andrew Gintzburg, b. a political prisoner, activist of the underground Solidarity
Richard Grabarczyk, b. a political prisoner, Solidarity activist
Alexander Janiszewski, b. a political prisoner, Solidarity activist
Peter Kapczy otrski, b. a political prisoner, activist of the democratic opposition
Mark Kossakowski, b. political prisoner, independent publicist
Christopher the King, b. a political prisoner , independence activist
Jaroslav Kurski, b. a political prisoner, activist of the democratic opposition
Barbara Swan, b. a political prisoner, activist of the underground Solidarity
Bogdan Lis, b. political prisoner, leader of the underground Solidarity in Gdansk
Henryk Majewski, b. a political prisoner, Solidarity activist
Adam Michnik, b. political prisoner, activist of the democratic opposition, editor of independent publishing houses
Slavomir Najniger, b. a political prisoner, activist of the underground Solidarity
Peter the German , b. political prisoner, journalist, and printer of underground publishing houses,
Stefan Konstanty Niesiołowski, b. a political prisoner , independence activist
Edward Nowak, b. a political prisoner, activist of the underground Solidarity
Wojciech Onyszkiewicz, b. political prisoner, member of the Workers' Defence Committee, Solidarity activist
Anthony Pawlak, b. a political prisoner, activist of the democratic opposition and underground Solidarity
Sylwia Poleska-Peryt, b. a political prisoner, activist of the democratic opposition
Christopher Push, b. a political prisoner, activist of the underground Solidarity
Richard Push, b. a political prisoner, activist of the underground Solidarity,
Jacek Rakowiecki, b. a political prisoner, activist of the underground Solidarity
Andrew Severn, b. political prisoner, actor, director of the Polish Theater in Warsaw
Witold Sielewicz, b. political prisoner, printer of independent publishing houses
Henryk Sikora, b. a political prisoner, Solidarity activist
Christopher Siemien .ski, b. political prisoner, journalist, and printer of underground publishing houses
Gra skayna Staniszewska, b. a political prisoner, leaders of Solidarity of the Beskids region
George Degrees, b. a political prisoner, activist of the democratic opposition
Joanna Happy, b. political prisoner, editor of Solidarity underground press
Ludwik Turko, b. a political prisoner, activist of the underground Solidarity
Matthew Wierzbicki, b. political prisoner, printer and publicist of independent publishing houses
3/31/25: Will negotiations fail?
3/21/25: Posted to my Notes and to Middle East Beat and Ukraine beat. I recommend putting on some headphones, taking a walk, and listening carefully to the full Tucker Carlson interview with Steve Witkoff. Do not rely on media accounts or snippets. I will make no comment except that Witkoff is sorely mistaken in his apparent belief that Hezbollah and Iran have been substantially weakened militarily by the recent Israeli attacks. From what I understand, while Witkoff is correct that Iran’s air defenses were weakened, the missile stocks of Iran and Hezbollah and their most advanced missiles and drones were absolutely n-o-t used in the attacks on Israel; Barbara Slavin and others (true prior to the most recent attacks) have warned that if they wanted to, Iran and Hezbollah could inflict masseve death and destruction on Israel, and this is still my understanding. Yet Israeli war hawks and US-based chicken hawks both apparently think that it is possible to “remove the head of the snake” by attacking Iran. Witkoff says Trump wants diplomacy including with Iran, but is willing to consider using military force to “prevent war,” whatever that means. Just saying, listen carefully to what he has to say about Israel/Gaza and Russian/Ukraine, as it is clear he is calling the shots, not Trump.
3/19/2025: This is the website of the Ukrainian Solidarity Network. It’s most recent post is here. Its FB is here. It has an active X account.
3/9/25: Perhaps grasping at straws, I keep hoping President Trump will actuallly find a way to end the Russia/Ukraine war (which is really a war now, given the graduatl erosion of prohibitions on Ukraine attacking deep into Russia, but remains one that was fundamentally an further agression by Russia on top of its 2014 occupation of Crimea). But an informed observer has reminded me of a couple of things. First. there was his reference to the 2020 Russian invasion as “genius” on the part of Putin. Here is a long, bold-faced quote from the Guardian article to remind me:
Donald Trump has said that Vladimir Putin is “very savvy” and made a “genius” move by declaring two regions of eastern Ukraine as independent states and moving Russian armed forces to them. Trump said he saw the escalation of the Ukrainian crisis on TV “and I said: ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine … Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful.” The former US president said that the Russian president had made a “smart move” by sending “the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen” to the area. Trump, a long-term admirer of Putin who was impeached over allegations he threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine unless it could help damage the reputation of Joe Biden, praised the Russian president’s moves while also claiming that they would not have happened if he was still president. “Here’s a guy who’s very savvy … I know him very well,” Trump said of Putin while talking to the The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show. “Very, very well. By the way, this never would have happened with us. Had I been in office, not even thinkable. This would never have happened. “But here’s a guy that says, you know, ‘I’m gonna declare a big portion of Ukraine independent’ – he used the word ‘independent’ – ‘and we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.”
This time, Trump is witholding certain aid to Ukraine on grounds he wants to influence Ukraine to be more flexible about a ceasefire of some kind on the way to a settlement of the war. He poses as a neutral “mediator” or “arbitrator”—he can’t seem to make up his mind on that. But the informer observer reminds me of the grounds for his first impeachment. One of the grounds was he held up aid to Ukraine and delayed a visit by Zelenskyy, according to Wikipedia; ‘The inquiry reported that Trump withheld military aid[a] and an invitation to the White House from Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy in order to influence Ukraine to announce an investigation into Trump's political opponent Joe Biden, and to promote a discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine–not Russia–was behind interference in the 2016 presidential election.[4][5].
I remember I kept thinking Nixon would end the war in Vietnam, too. I was radicalized first and foremost because Lyndon Johnson lied about Vietnam. Remembrer when we thought it a huge thing if a President lied? Nixon made it an art and Trump breaks all records. Now I have concluded Trump is Patrimonial and that the only hope he will find a way to stop the war is his investment in his deal-making abilities.
3/8/25 The Editorial Board of the Cleveland Plain Dealer has weighed in on the 2/28/25 11:20-13:42 meeting of Trump/Vance/Zelenskyy in the Oval Office. The began with a link to a Politifact story, which for the first time spelled his name right, with two yys! His X account shows this, and his latest post as of 3/8 says: “Today, a highly productive meeting took place in Kyiv between the diplomatic teams of Ukraine and the UK. We discussed our joint steps that could bring us closer to peace and accelerate diplomatic efforts. I’m grateful for the support. Ukraine is determined to do everything to end this war with a just and lasting peace as soon as possible. Next week, I will begin with a visit to Saudi Arabia. After my meeting on Monday with the Crown Prince, Ukrainian diplomatic and military representatives will stay for a meeting on Tuesday with the American team. The Ukrainian team will include Andriy Yermak, Andriy Sybiha, Rustem Umerov, and Pavlo Palisa. On our side, we are fully committed to constructive dialogue, and we hope to discuss and agree on the necessary decisions and steps. Ukraine has been seeking peace from the very first second of this war. Realistic proposals are on the table. The key is to move quickly and effectively.” In his first X post immediately after the visit he said: “Thank you America, thank you for your support, thank you for this visit. Thank you @POTUS, Congress, and the American people. Ukraine needs just and lasting peace, and we are working exactly for that.”
On knowledgeable observer contends Trump constantly changes his mind and that is his MO (method of operation). The observer says he basically is pressuring Ukraine to surrender. That observer highly recommends this Times article on how Trump operates.
As the PD pointed out, “A U.S. “pause” in Ukrainian aid followed on Monday, with Trump saying Zelensky needed to show he was ready for peace.” They continued: “That, apparently, Zelensky has done. At his Tuesday night speech to a Joint Session of Congress, Trump quoted from a letter he’d received from Zelensky earlier that day, that, “Ukraine is ready to come to the negotiating table as soon as possible to bring lasting peace closer” and that Ukraine would sign the minerals deal “at any time that is convenient for you.” That link is to a key AP story, which reports more on what I reported below, well, not so much reported, this a running beat commentary not a news item, although I do strive for accuracy and try to fact check.
Next the PD roundtable included comments from Editorial Board Members. I will cite and comment selectively. Leila Atassi, manager public interest and advocacy, whose reporting I followed for years, especially for her work on the Greater Cleveland Series. Her key quote was: “Meanwhile, Trump rewrites history, painting Ukraine as the villain, while shaking it down for mineral rights like a schoolyard bully demanding lunch money.” Ted Diadum, a conservative columnist, agreed about the bullying. Thomas Suddes, journalism professor at OU said, mentioning that Vance is a Catholic, said: “Read up, Mr. Vice President, before you mouth off, and stop toadying; you’ll be president soon enough.” His comment about being Catholic was in reference to his contention Vance should be fully aware that no country has suffered as much from external invasions as Ukraine. But apparently less than 2% of Ukrainians are Roman Catholic. I had asked the knowledgeable observer about that, but they said, “I think you are mixing me up with Siri.” Eric Foster, a community columnist, said: “Still, it’s shocking to see a president bully an international ally on national television using the talking points of an international nemesis. Let us pray the shoe is never on the other foot.” Victor Ruiz, editorial board member: “America wanted a bully, and now we have one. The thing about bullies is that, sooner or later, people get fed up and fight back.” Mary Cay Doherty, editorial board member: The bloody stalemate must end. Putin is untrustworthy, but short of an upfront military defense commitment, we cannot “guarantee” Ukraine’s security. President Trump seeks a deal that offers Ukraine as much security as possible. Elizabeth Sullivan, opinion director (entire comment): “President Trump’s bullying harangues are old news, even if shocking in the context of meeting with an ally during a high-stakes war. It was, however, JD Vance’s smoothly executed provocateur role that was most revealing about this chameleon in GOP clothing. In a dangerous pas de trois (de quatre, counting Putin), Vance is the one to watch - closely.”
I agree fully with Elizabeth. That was the real news: Vance interjecting himself as if he is the president-elect. I predict that just as the Cabinet is rebelling against Musk, they will in the end rebel against Vance, who is very unlikeable. Watch for Senator Marco Rubio to emerge as the adult in the cabinet room.
As my analysis would suggest, unlike the Patrimonial President, Vance is a right-wing “libertarian” committed to dismantling the welfare state and making military spending our main national priority, and is willing to use what he himself calls “extra-constitutional means.” Neither, however, are Authoritarians or fascists per se and I this will be borne out; it will all be wrapped in an American flag and that puts limits on what they can get away with.
In the meantime, this “beat” will follow those meetings in Saudi Arabia carefully. I must say, it is shocking how little real objective analysis there been of that meeting and its first 39 minutes; the focus was all on the blow-up at the end, instead of the substance of the beginning, which was actually hopeful. I remain convinced Trump is desperate for a deal, given as the PD pointed out, he has already failed to deliver on his promise to end the war in a day.
3/7/25: Our patrimonial President, the favorite target of everyone, announced he may double down on sanctions against Russia, in response to their using ballistic missiles against Ukraine. Then an hour later he talked about what a good job Russia was doing in conducting it’s war by “bombing” all over Ukraine. He constantly contradicts himself and changes his mind; and is increasingly appearing to out of his mind.
As I have said, his only real concern is his right to brag he made a “deal”; he has no real concern for peace. But let’s not assume he is in Putin’s pocket. The problem with Trump is both much worse than we think it is and not as bad as we think it is; true, I say that about everything. Remember, per my analysis, individually he is not a right-wing libertarian nor a right wing authoritarian, and not a would be fascist either: he is a right-wing patrimonial. It is all about him and his family and friends.
3/6/25: AM to add to my Ukraine database soon: First see transcript of the meeting between Trump and Zelensky, based upon the CPAN YouTube. Try to focus on the bulk of it, not the end of it after Zelensky’s quesition to Trump. Analyze it objectifely. Also, see this on Unity for Ukraine, although it is mainly sloganeering, not analysis. Common Dreams gives an anti-colonial perspective on Ukraine, but not one from those parts of the left that tilt towards Putin. For instance, he cites Mikhail Gorbachev, who clarified that NATO never promised not to expand east. He links to a timeline from U-Maryland on Crimea showing the longstanding efforts of Russian-language speaking occupants of Crimea in seeking to undermine Ukrainian sovereignty. He provides a link to an article about a key Putin speech backing Russian Orthodox supprt for the war as a “holy war.” That is consistent with my view of much of the wars of the world as carried out by what I consider totalitarian theocratic patriarchal power brokers, a mouthful, but a key term to understand, as it explains everything from Christian nationalism, to Hamas/Islamic Jihad to the Buddhist/military attacks on the Rohingya people (who have a few of them in their Islamist ranks as well, to the far religious right in Israel.
I’m sorry if that analysis that reinforces my view that a resurgence of the world’s first social group-based oppression:, patriarchy and male supremacy, are at the root of much that poses as ethnic or religious domination or conflict between imperalist powers or between “socialism and capitalism.”
Francis analyzes resistance movements in Ukraine, and I am not competent to assess their nature: “Resistance movements in Ukraine, such as those documented by Avtonom, 161 Crew's Ukraine War Reader, Solidarity Collectives, and the Ukraine Solidarity Campaign USC), provide vital perspectives that counter the dominant geopolitical framing of the war.” I had in the past supported USN, but no longer so as noted below due to their condemnation of Zelensky. USC is supported by US leftists who are typically quite principled (such as the group Solidarity), even though I am not typically in agreement with their rigid opposition to the Democratic Party. Others on the US left who support USC and follow their positions and seem to base there oulook on what USC is say include post-new communist groups and individuals, including some who I worry do so only on grounds of “sovereignty,” which they would also use to critique independence for Taiwan, and finally there are those who support Ukraine from an an “anti-colonial” outlook that they would also use to deny statehood from Israel.
Francis is working on a book about Noam Chomsky, an admirable project. He does n-n-o-t seem to use an “anti-colonial” lens in his work on Israel and Gaza, and provides a valuable piece from earlier this year I will draw on for my election analysis. And Francis gives solid history: “Why should Ukraine trust new security assurances? The 1994 Budapest Memorandum was supposed to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons. Signed by the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia, it offered security assurances against military aggression in return for Ukraine's commitment to denuclearization. However, the failure to uphold these guarantees severely damaged the credibility of international security agreements. The same applies to the Minsk agreements, which Russia also disregarded, claiming they were not bound by them.”
He cited a valuable The Hill summary of Trump’s statements reprinted in Yahoo News. For more on Francis, see: https://www.therightpodcast.org/. He does not seem to be beholden to any of those above wings of the US left whose support for Ukraine I am suspcicius of, and certainly not those portions of the US left who tilt towards Putin in the name of peace. He seems devoted to serious inquiry from his position, which he describes as “internationalist, anti-authoritarian critique of politics, history, and activism from the left.” Thank you Robert Francis for your valuable work!
3/5/25: Scary substack on AI warfare tools being developed in Ukraine. Is Ukraine being used for a training ground for weapons development?
3/5/25: Reuters reports Zelensky wroteTrump yesterday he wants to sign the minerals deal. Apparently Trump announced it last night, but I didn't listen carefully. It seems distasteful and that the deal may be bullying, but it is hard to rule out it is not part of a plan to convince Russia to a fair and just settlement of the war based on Ukrainian sovereignty, which as I have documented is part of the mineral deal. It seems to me Ukraine's main priority should be to be in the EU. A little noticed aspect of the EU is that there is a European Union defense force and even a navy. Giving the piggishness of Trump, I wonder if this wouldn't be the best way for the delivery of the security guarantees to Ukraine, rather than NATO membership. Since when do we love NATO so much? The advantage of NATO is its clause about an attack on one being an attack on all. But couldn't the EU countries say this as well?
What really worries me is that Trump would be willing to make "deals" with Russia to give up Ukraine or a good chunk of it in exchange for it not opposing efforts by the US vis a via Panama, Greenland and so forth, and I wonder if Trump doesn't have in mind seeking China's support in exchange for "giving" them Taiwan. We need to watch like hawks.
Mike Dover
3/4/25 #2: Since writing the below, I’ve read Lawrence Wittner’s piece on the White House debacle. I’m not sure it changes my thinking: I hate Trump’s bullying as much as anyone, but I’m not sure everyone critical of the proposed deal had seen the actual language. There is some debate about the nature of the “minerals deal” that Trump announced he and Zelensky would sign four days ago. BBC reported today that Ukraine still plans to sign such a deal. BBC stated, “the minerals deal was intended as a stepping stone towards further security ties between the two countries.” The notion was that the sequencing of a peace deal was first to have a minerals deal with the US. According to CBS News, the US Treasury Secretary says the previously verbally agreed to deal was no longer on the table, but Zelensky repeated he is still willing to sign it. Meanwhile, BBC said Starmer announced more details of a four point plan:
to keep military aid flowing into Ukraine, and to keep increasing the economic pressure on Russia
that any lasting peace must ensure Ukraine's sovereignty and security and Ukraine must be present at any peace talks
in the event of a peace deal, to boost Ukraine's defensive capabilities to deter any future invasion
to develop a "coalition of the willing" to defend a deal in Ukraine and to guarantee peace afterwards.
Here is what we know as of 10 hours ago about the mineral deal from BBC: “When Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky travelled to Washington at the end of February to meet Donald Trump, he was expecting to sign a major deal to jointly develop his country's mineral deposits. But after a fiery meeting between the two presidents and US Vice-President JD Vance, he left before the signing ceremony and the deal is on hold. Since then, the US has announced it was pausing all military aid to Ukraine, with Zelensky later expressing regret over the Oval Office meeting. Both men have indicated the minerals agreement could still be on the table, with Zelensky reiterating that Ukraine is ready to sign a deal it views as a "step toward greater security.”
Prior to the White House Meeting, Ukrainian media provided the full text. I am going to print the full text here, as it appears there are progressives in the US who scoff at or oppose this agreement:
BILATERAL AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR A RECONSTRUCTION INVESTMENT FUND
WHEREAS the United States of America has provided significant financial and material support to Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022;
WHEREAS the American people desire to invest alongside Ukraine in a free, sovereign and secure Ukraine;
WHEREAS the United States of America and Ukraine desire a lasting peace in Ukraine and a durable partnership between their two peoples and governments;
WHEREAS the United States of America and Ukraine recognize the contribution that Ukraine has made to strengthening international peace and security by voluntarily abandoning the world's third largest arsenal of nuclear weapons;
WHEREAS the United States of America and Ukraine wish to ensure that those States and other persons that have acted adversely to Ukraine in the conflict do not benefit from the reconstruction of Ukraine following a lasting peace;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Ukraine (each, a "Participant") hereby enter into this Bilateral Agreement Establishing Terms and Conditions for a Reconstruction Investment Fund to deepen the partnership between the United States of America and Ukraine, as set forth herein.
The Governments of Ukraine and the United States of America, with the aim of achieving lasting peace in Ukraine, intend to establish a Reconstruction Investment Fund (Fund), partnering in the Fund through joint ownership, to be further defined in the Fund Agreement. Joint ownership will take into consideration the actual contributions of the Participants as defined in Sections 3 and 4. The Fund will be jointly managed by representatives of the Government of Ukraine and the Government of the United States of America. More detailed terms pertaining to the Fund’s governance and operation will be set forth in a subsequent agreement (the Fund Agreement) to be negotiated promptly after the conclusion of this Bilateral Agreement. The maximum percentage of ownership of the Fund’s equity and financial interests to be held by the Government of the United States of America and the decision-making authority of the representatives of the Government of the United States of America will be to the extent permissible under applicable United States laws.
Neither Participant will sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of, directly or indirectly, any portion of its interest in the Fund without the prior written consent of the other Participant.
The Fund will collect and reinvest revenues contributed to the Fund, minus expenses incurred by the Fund, and will earn income from the future monetization of all relevant Ukrainian Government-owned natural resource assets (whether owned directly or indirectly by the Ukrainian Government), as defined in Section 3.
The Government of Ukraine will contribute to the Fund 50 percent of all revenues earned from the future monetization of all relevant Ukrainian Government-owned natural resource assets (whether owned directly or indirectly by the Ukrainian Government), defined as deposits of minerals, hydrocarbons, oil, natural gas, and other extractable materials, and other infrastructure relevant to natural resource assets (such as liquified natural gas terminals and port infrastructure) as agreed by both Participants, as may be further described in the Fund Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, such future sources of revenues do not include the current sources of revenues which are already part of the general budget revenues of Ukraine. Timeline, scope and sustainability of contributions will be further defined in the Fund Agreement.
The Fund, in its sole discretion, may credit or return to the Government of Ukraine actual expenses incurred by the newly developed projects from which the Fund receives revenues.
Contributions made to the Fund will be reinvested at least annually in Ukraine to promote the safety, security and prosperity of Ukraine, to be further defined in the Fund Agreement. The Fund Agreement will also provide for future distributions.
Subject to applicable United States law, the Government of the United States of America will maintain a long-term financial commitment to the development of a stable and economically prosperous Ukraine. Further contributions may be comprised of funds, financial instruments, and other tangible and intangible assets critical for the reconstruction of Ukraine.
The Fund's investment process will be designed so as to invest in projects in Ukraine and attract investments to increase the development, processing and monetization of all public and private Ukrainian assets including, but not limited to, deposits of minerals, hydrocarbons, oil, natural gas, and other extractable materials, infrastructure, ports, and state-owned enterprises as may be further described in the Fund Agreement. The Government of the United States of America and the Government of Ukraine intend that the investment process will lead to opportunities for distribution of additional funds and greater reinvestment, to ensure the sufficient supply of capital for the reconstruction of Ukraine as set out in the Fund Agreement.
The Participants reserve the right to take such action as necessary to protect and maximize the value of their economic interests in the Fund.
The Fund Agreement will include appropriate representations and warranties, including those necessary to ensure that any obligations the Government of Ukraine may have to third parties, or such obligations that it may undertake in the future, do not sell, convey, transfer pledge, or otherwise encumber the Government of Ukraine’s contributions to the Fund or the assets from which such contributions are derived, or the Fund’s disposition of funds.
In drafting the Fund Agreement, the Participants will strive to avoid conflicts with Ukraine’s obligations under its accession to the European Union or its obligations under arrangements with international financial institutions and other official creditors.
The Fund Agreement will provide, inter alia, an acknowledgment that both the Fund Agreement and the activities provided for therein are commercial in nature.
The Fund Agreement shall be ratified by the Parliament of Ukraine according to the Law of Ukraine "On International Treaties of Ukraine".
The Fund Agreement will pay particular attention to the control mechanisms that make it impossible to weaken, violate or circumvent sanctions and other restrictive measures.
The text of the Fund Agreement will be developed without delay by working groups chaired by authorized representatives of the Government of Ukraine and the Government of the United States of America. Contact persons responsible for preparing the Fund Agreement on the basis of this Bilateral Agreement are: from the Government of the United States of America: the Department of the Treasury; from the Government of Ukraine: Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Economy.
This Bilateral Agreement and the Fund Agreement will constitute integral elements of the architecture of bilateral and multilateral agreements, as well as concrete steps to establish lasting peace, and to strengthen economic security resilience and reflect the objectives set forth in the preamble to this Bilateral Agreement.
The Government of the United States of America supports Ukraine’s efforts to obtain security guarantees needed to establish lasting peace. Participants will seek to identify any necessary steps to protect mutual investments, as defined in the Fund Agreement.
This Bilateral Agreement is binding and will be implemented by each Participant according to its domestic procedures. The Government of the United States of America and the Government of Ukraine commit to proceed forthwith to negotiate the Fund Agreement.
Signed in English and Ukrainian languages, both texts are equally authentic.
I will not bold-face key elements:
This Bilateral Agreement and the Fund Agreement will constitute integral elements of the architecture of bilateral and multilateral agreements, as well as concrete steps to establish lasting peace, and to strengthen economic security resilience and reflect the objectives set forth in the preamble to this Bilateral Agreement.
The Government of the United States of America supports Ukraine’s efforts to obtain security guarantees needed to establish lasting peace. Participants will seek to identify any necessary steps to protect mutual investments, as defined in the Fund Agreement.
A few comments here: some are skeptical of the notion that having the United States and US corporations on the ground in Ukraine as part of the minerals deal would dissuade Russia from attacking Ukraine again. Apparently that is something Trump thinks would be the case. It would help him make his “deal.” I am skeptical of that, but my reading of the above shows there was in fact an apparently good faith effort on the Trump Administration’s part to sequence this deal with subsequent efforts to move forward with the proposed partial ceasefire that Macron proposed. One thing is clear: US troops can’t be on the ground in Ukraine, but apparently, the plan is to have some active presence of other nation’s troops as part of a security deal. I haven’t listened yet, but Snyder has a video commenting on Ukraine.
3/4/25 #1: I did not want to say anything publicly until now, but I think it is safe to do so at this time, given this hopeful report from WAPO on Zelensky unilaterally offering a partial ceasefire and saying what happened at the White House was “regrettable.” Not a single liberal news media account say what I am going to say, other than one of the conservative commentators on a CNN discussion. But any objective listening to the entire White House event would trace the origin of the debacle to when near the end around minute 39 when Trump had just said to the media, “one more question,” and Vance jumped in to defend Trump and attack Bush. Then President Zelensky inappropriately asking “JD” (omitting his title) an inappropriately timed question. While the substance of what Zelensky said at firrst was fine, he should have know it would lead to a public disagrement, and Vance then escalated it further in a very disrespectul manner, with Zelensky insulting him with a question as to whether Vance had been to Ukraine him, interrupting Vance twice then and becoming argumentative with Vance, with Trump finally jumping in angrily and the whole thing broke down, with Zelensky doing his best to de-escalate it.
Until then, Trump had allowed Zelensky to correct him, like he had allowd Macron to correct him, on the amoung of US and European aid to Ukraine. Trump has pledged further military aid although he wouldn’t pledge in advance of a “deal” on the question of security guarantees. Trump was sticking to his delusion he is a “mediator” or perhaps “arbitrator” and someone had clearly briefed him on how to handle the meeting.
The idea there was a plot for the meeting to go south is ridiculous. It truly was handled poorly by a man, President Zelensky, who was clearly upset and in pain about the immense suffering of his people and the exploitative agreement he was about to have to sign to give access to his countries minerals. But I must say, from a journalistic perspective, the coverage of the meeting was atrocious and was just used to attack Trump with glee and report on all kinds of conspiracy theories. Watch the video and see, but there is a war to end.
Let us now praise President Zelensky for his courage in trying to move forward. As for the pause in aid, while I criticized it above, there is a case to be made that the Trump administration was frustrated by Zelensky saying he would not favor a ceasefire while final negotiations began, and that pausing the aid was one way to pressure him to be more open-minded. The partial ceasefire proposal was made by Macron, and seems to me a very good idea. Can we pleae approach this issue without having our Anti-Trump agenda dominate our thinking?
3/2/25: The Guardian account of the debacle at the White House. Even the WSJ is aghast at Vance’s conduct.
3/1/25: Here is the CSPAN of the full Trump/Vance/Zelensky meeting. In general, I have supported the demands of this Ukraine solidarity campaign, and am strongly critical of Code Pink and other groups on the “left” who have tried to claim that the US and NATO were at fault for forcing Russia to act starting in 2014, with its incursions into Eastern Europe and takeover of Crimea. My I am most in accord with the Friday comments of Bernie Sanders here.
2/11/25: In the nuff said not enough done department, this is an important speech on the floor of the Senate about the fate of Ukraine by Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado.
Introduction: See my substack’s “beat” on Russian’s War with Ukraine and here https://tinyurl.com/EndingWarOnUkraine for oodles of pieces I felt are suitable for public consumption, unlike most of the Russian apologists of left and right w
ich I read very thoroughy, that is until 10/03/2023 shifted my focus.
I continue to save and read but not as throroughly. Hey, I want a negotiated piece as much as anyone, and the Ukrainians I talk to across the political spectrum like my suggestion that Russia be given Guantanamo-like access to the Crimean port and guaranteed access to the bridge to Russia. But see this from the substack Conflict and Democracy for the latest explanation of the follies of the left. Readers are encouraged to send links to items to add, including books, to michaelalandover@gmail.com with Lagniappe Links in the subject. Minor updates do not produce subscriber notificaitons, only new posts, so readers are encouraged to subscribe (at no cost). Send comments to the above email please.