[Goose]

Also, whether damage is done by debris or by an intact drone is a distinction without a difference.  If Ukraine's aim is to damage the refineries, and Russia's (presumably) is to prevent such damage, then what causes the damage is an academic distinction, that is maybe important to the Russian air defense units trying to deflect blame.

BC

Yes indeed, if you break it you break it, doesn't make much difference how.

I have to disagree :-). It makes an immense and strategically significant difference. If Russia is capable of downing 100% of a 70 drone Ukraine strike without involving the VKS and without major redeployment of its SHORAD assets (which would certainly have been detected and elicited commentary) then Russia is on the verge of rendering Ukraine's drone offensive moot. If the current approach is 100% effective but destroys the drones too late so that debris cause too much damage, just re-deploy that defense over a slightly wider radius. Such a redeployment may require a few more assets, but since no "special" effort has been required so far it would be almost certain that those assets could easily be made available. Ukraine will then be totally unable to inflict damage on critical Russian infrastructure. Game over.

Of course, I don't believe that damage is from falling debris. The drones are relatively small and most of them are plastic/fiberglass/composite construction. Not much metal besides the engine. It is possible that an intact explosives package would land on the target. It isn't clear that if it did so, it would even explode. These drones aren't very fast. The also don't fly very high. Debris aren't aerodynamic, they have lots of drag. For debris to do such damage would require that the drones producing them were destroyed in very close proximity to the target. It would be impossible to not have lots of reports of such shoot-downs and we would have phone camera videos galore. I have found one such article, which links to the following  video. As the article states

Footage showing the successful interception of Ukraine’s long-range one-way attack drones by Russian ground-based air defenses is not generally common and this one reinforces the challenge posed by these relentless Ukrainian attacks against Russian infrastructure and military facilities.

The debris from this intercept are clearly too small to cause much damage and aren't going very far anyway. Russia is indeed spreading propaganda, thank goodness.

[Goose]

Also, whether damage is done by debris or by an intact drone is a distinction without a difference.  If Ukraine's aim is to damage the refineries, and Russia's (presumably) is to prevent such damage, then what causes the damage is an academic distinction, that is maybe important to the Russian air defense units trying to deflect blame.

BC

Yes indeed, if you break it you break it, doesn't make much difference how.

I have to disagree :-). It makes an immense and strategically significant difference. If Russia is capable of downing 100% of a 70 drone Ukraine strike without involving the VKS and without major redeployment of its SHORAD assets (which would certainly have been detected and elicited commentary) then Russia is on the verge of rendering Ukraine's drone offensive moot. If the current approach is 100% effective but destroys the drones too late so that debris cause too much damage, just re-deploy that defense over a slightly wider radius. Such a redeployment may require a few more assets, but since no "special" effort has been required so far it would be almost certain that those assets could easily be made available. Ukraine will then be totally unable to inflict damage on critical Russian infrastructure. Game over.

Of course, I don't believe that damage is from falling debris. The drones are relatively small and most of them are plastic/fiberglass/composite construction. Not much metal besides the engine. It is possible that an intact explosives package would land on the target. It isn't clear that if it did so, it would even explode. These drones aren't very fast. The also don't fly very high. Debris aren't aerodynamic, they have lots of drag. For debris to do such damage would require that the drones producing them were destroyed in very close proximity to the target. It would be impossible to not have lots of reports of such shoot-downs and we would have phone camera videos galore. I have found one such article, which links to the following  video. As the article states

Footage showing the successful interception of Ukraine’s long-range one-way attack drones by Russian ground-based air defenses is not generally common and this one reinforces the challenge posed by these relentless Ukrainian attacks against Russian infrastructure and military facilities.

The debris from this intercept are clearly too small to cause much damage and aren't going very far anyway. Russia is indeed spreading propaganda, thank goodness.

[BostonCard]

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/world...ussia.html

North Korean troops are apparently no longer on the front lines.  Evidently they were being used as fodder for the meet grinder.

Many of the soldiers are among North Korea’s best-trained special operations troops, but the Russians appear to have used them as foot soldiers, sending them forth in waves across fields studded with land mines to be mowed down by heavy Ukrainian fire.
Editors’ Picks

The American officials said the decision to pull the North Korean troops off the front line may not be a permanent one. It is possible, they said, that the North Koreans could return after receiving additional training or after the Russians come up with new ways of deploying them to avoid such heavy casualties.

I hope that it is not, in fact, so they can return to the battlefield in a more effective usage.

BC

[BostonCard]

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/30/world...ussia.html

North Korean troops are apparently no longer on the front lines.  Evidently they were being used as fodder for the meet grinder.

Many of the soldiers are among North Korea’s best-trained special operations troops, but the Russians appear to have used them as foot soldiers, sending them forth in waves across fields studded with land mines to be mowed down by heavy Ukrainian fire.
Editors’ Picks

The American officials said the decision to pull the North Korean troops off the front line may not be a permanent one. It is possible, they said, that the North Koreans could return after receiving additional training or after the Russians come up with new ways of deploying them to avoid such heavy casualties.

I hope that it is not, in fact, so they can return to the battlefield in a more effective usage.

BC

[newguy]

apparently, Russian vehicle losses have forced some troops from the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) to ride horses.  
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/20...ng-horses/
if they get their hands on composite bows........watch out.

[newguy]

apparently, Russian vehicle losses have forced some troops from the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) to ride horses.  
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/20...ng-horses/
if they get their hands on composite bows........watch out.

[Goose]

apparently, Russian vehicle losses have forced some troops from the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) to ride horses.  
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/20...ng-horses/
if they get their hands on composite bows........watch out.

Not at all sure the usage of horses is mandated by loss of vehicles or an intelligent choice made by the troops in question. We all undoubtedly remember that the US SOF in Afghanistan used horses extensively, as did the allied Afghani troops. It is still "mud season" in Ukraine. Vehicles, even if available, may be a very poor choice. Horses may do much better in that terrain.

Of course, this doesn't mean the Russian vehicle losses do not matter. They undoubtedly do, particularly in necessary logistics. It probably doesn't correlate with a couple of Russian using horses though.

[Goose]

apparently, Russian vehicle losses have forced some troops from the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) to ride horses.  
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/20...ng-horses/
if they get their hands on composite bows........watch out.

Not at all sure the usage of horses is mandated by loss of vehicles or an intelligent choice made by the troops in question. We all undoubtedly remember that the US SOF in Afghanistan used horses extensively, as did the allied Afghani troops. It is still "mud season" in Ukraine. Vehicles, even if available, may be a very poor choice. Horses may do much better in that terrain.

Of course, this doesn't mean the Russian vehicle losses do not matter. They undoubtedly do, particularly in necessary logistics. It probably doesn't correlate with a couple of Russian using horses though.

[dabigv13]

A week ago a Russian assault group had a tank followed by a bunch of civilians trucks and SUVs. It didn't go well for them. Clearly Russia has scraped the bottom of the barrel of their IFV stocks.

[dabigv13]

A week ago a Russian assault group had a tank followed by a bunch of civilians trucks and SUVs. It didn't go well for them. Clearly Russia has scraped the bottom of the barrel of their IFV stocks.

[Goose]

A week ago a Russian assault group had a tank followed by a bunch of civilians trucks and SUVs. It didn't go well for them. Clearly Russia has scraped the bottom of the barrel of their IFV stocks.

You are undoubtedly correct. Lots of them were destroyed in action, but even more were undoubtedly lost due to no maintenance, no spare parts, and "old age". Not that it appears to matters much. Their "meat attacks" continue and they don't require IFVs. It just means they will advance even slower because they have to walk.  War is always a catastrophe but this one is worse than many.

[Goose]

A week ago a Russian assault group had a tank followed by a bunch of civilians trucks and SUVs. It didn't go well for them. Clearly Russia has scraped the bottom of the barrel of their IFV stocks.

You are undoubtedly correct. Lots of them were destroyed in action, but even more were undoubtedly lost due to no maintenance, no spare parts, and "old age". Not that it appears to matters much. Their "meat attacks" continue and they don't require IFVs. It just means they will advance even slower because they have to walk.  War is always a catastrophe but this one is worse than many.

[TrumpCard]

Russia and Ukraine are 3 years (minus 18 days) into this war.  It doesn't feel like they're close to the end yet, does it?

[TrumpCard]

Russia and Ukraine are 3 years (minus 18 days) into this war.  It doesn't feel like they're close to the end yet, does it?

[Mick]

Russia and Ukraine are 3 years (minus 18 days) into this war.  It doesn't feel like they're close to the end yet, does it?

Not to me it doesn't. I don't think this ends quickly. Both sides have too much invested.

[Mick]

Russia and Ukraine are 3 years (minus 18 days) into this war.  It doesn't feel like they're close to the end yet, does it?

Not to me it doesn't. I don't think this ends quickly. Both sides have too much invested.

[dabigv13]

This conflict will not end for a long time, but we are closer to some sort of ceasefire or negotiated temporary settlement.

Right now both sides are like exhausted fighters in the later rounds. They can't throw any big punches that might end things decisively.

Zelensky has been reluctant to even talk about a negotiated settlement, but much less so in the past couple weeks. The fact that so much emphasis has been on retaining some Russian territory in Kursk, even to the likely bigger detriment of front lines elsewhere, reflects the thinking that it will be a useful bargaining chip in negotiations.

I think this may be relevant as well. Could be the beginning of the US taking a less involved approach, and perhaps less aid being sent.

U.K. Defence Secretary John Healey will lead Wednesday’s meeting of Kyiv’s allies under the Ukraine Defense Contact Group format, taking over from the U.S. for the first time, the British Ministry of Defence said on Thursday.

The meeting is scheduled ahead of a summit of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, but the Ukraine grouping, also known as the Ramstein Format, is far bigger, including more than 50 allies.

It was set up in April 2022 as a platform to figure out how to support Kyiv in its effort to repulse Russia’s forces, covering everything from fighter jet training to cybersecurity.

[dabigv13]

This conflict will not end for a long time, but we are closer to some sort of ceasefire or negotiated temporary settlement.

Right now both sides are like exhausted fighters in the later rounds. They can't throw any big punches that might end things decisively.

Zelensky has been reluctant to even talk about a negotiated settlement, but much less so in the past couple weeks. The fact that so much emphasis has been on retaining some Russian territory in Kursk, even to the likely bigger detriment of front lines elsewhere, reflects the thinking that it will be a useful bargaining chip in negotiations.

I think this may be relevant as well. Could be the beginning of the US taking a less involved approach, and perhaps less aid being sent.

U.K. Defence Secretary John Healey will lead Wednesday’s meeting of Kyiv’s allies under the Ukraine Defense Contact Group format, taking over from the U.S. for the first time, the British Ministry of Defence said on Thursday.

The meeting is scheduled ahead of a summit of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, but the Ukraine grouping, also known as the Ramstein Format, is far bigger, including more than 50 allies.

It was set up in April 2022 as a platform to figure out how to support Kyiv in its effort to repulse Russia’s forces, covering everything from fighter jet training to cybersecurity.

[Goose]

Russia and Ukraine are 3 years (minus 18 days) into this war.  It doesn't feel like they're close to the end yet, does it?

IMO it is a mixed bag. Either country could collapse unexpectedly. Both Russia and Ukraine have major internal issues. IMO right now both sides are playing for time to see what comes of the US attempts to end the war. In some ways both sides are acting like some kind of a negotiated settlement is going to happen "soon" and they have to position themselves to maximize what they can get out of it. OTOH Russia is still attacking in Donbas and Ukraine is still sending drones to hit Russian refineries and air bases. Russia is still attriting Ukraine's electric utilities with drones and ballistic missiles.

IMO it depends a lot on Putin. If he wants to end the war on good terms for Russia, it is almost certainly within his grasp. OTOH he may not be willing to accept anything short of an unconditional Ukrainian surrender. If so, the war will go on.

[Goose]

Russia and Ukraine are 3 years (minus 18 days) into this war.  It doesn't feel like they're close to the end yet, does it?

IMO it is a mixed bag. Either country could collapse unexpectedly. Both Russia and Ukraine have major internal issues. IMO right now both sides are playing for time to see what comes of the US attempts to end the war. In some ways both sides are acting like some kind of a negotiated settlement is going to happen "soon" and they have to position themselves to maximize what they can get out of it. OTOH Russia is still attacking in Donbas and Ukraine is still sending drones to hit Russian refineries and air bases. Russia is still attriting Ukraine's electric utilities with drones and ballistic missiles.

IMO it depends a lot on Putin. If he wants to end the war on good terms for Russia, it is almost certainly within his grasp. OTOH he may not be willing to accept anything short of an unconditional Ukrainian surrender. If so, the war will go on.

[M T]

I don't think any here have mentioned the aid-for-resources statement by the US President.  With so much going on in US politics, did people miss it, or just think it was bluster or positioning?

Given the current US administration thinking with wallets instead of hearts, this is somewhat believable to me.  Indeed, it could even lead to US investment (rebuilding) in Ukraine after the war, if Ukraine survives in some form.  It also gives the current US administration a story as to why it would support the Ukraine side after previously being negative about the cost.   In a sense, any raw materials the US gets from Ukraine, they are worth double if they would otherwise wind up in Russian hands.

[M T]

I don't think any here have mentioned the aid-for-resources statement by the US President.  With so much going on in US politics, did people miss it, or just think it was bluster or positioning?

Given the current US administration thinking with wallets instead of hearts, this is somewhat believable to me.  Indeed, it could even lead to US investment (rebuilding) in Ukraine after the war, if Ukraine survives in some form.  It also gives the current US administration a story as to why it would support the Ukraine side after previously being negative about the cost.   In a sense, any raw materials the US gets from Ukraine, they are worth double if they would otherwise wind up in Russian hands.

[Goose]

I don't think any here have mentioned the aid-for-resources statement by the US President.  With so much going on in US politics, did people miss it, or just think it was bluster or positioning?

Given the current US administration thinking with wallets instead of hearts, this is somewhat believable to me.  Indeed, it could even lead to US investment (rebuilding) in Ukraine after the war, if Ukraine survives in some form.  It also gives the current US administration a story as to why it would support the Ukraine side after previously being negative about the cost.   In a sense, any raw materials the US gets from Ukraine, they are worth double if they would otherwise wind up in Russian hands.

The quantity of immediately available raw materials in Ukraine is generally vastly overstated. Raw materials are at least notionally present in many locations. In almost all cases there is no ongoing extraction and no on-the-ground sampling of exactly what ore concentration, ore chemistry, and ore body size is involved. Ukraine would have to do the prospecting, select appropriate locations and build mines/refining facilities before they could ship processed ore. If the current administration would accept a very long-range "earn out" period and if the investment capital required was made available, it could work.

Long term, it might be a good investment but there will be no ROI for quite awhile. I am not sure the administration would accept that kind of deal. I am not sure the administration is looking for long-term gains. OTOH it may be a good way to pressure Putin and explain a new willingness to help Ukraine.

[Goose]

I don't think any here have mentioned the aid-for-resources statement by the US President.  With so much going on in US politics, did people miss it, or just think it was bluster or positioning?

Given the current US administration thinking with wallets instead of hearts, this is somewhat believable to me.  Indeed, it could even lead to US investment (rebuilding) in Ukraine after the war, if Ukraine survives in some form.  It also gives the current US administration a story as to why it would support the Ukraine side after previously being negative about the cost.   In a sense, any raw materials the US gets from Ukraine, they are worth double if they would otherwise wind up in Russian hands.

The quantity of immediately available raw materials in Ukraine is generally vastly overstated. Raw materials are at least notionally present in many locations. In almost all cases there is no ongoing extraction and no on-the-ground sampling of exactly what ore concentration, ore chemistry, and ore body size is involved. Ukraine would have to do the prospecting, select appropriate locations and build mines/refining facilities before they could ship processed ore. If the current administration would accept a very long-range "earn out" period and if the investment capital required was made available, it could work.

Long term, it might be a good investment but there will be no ROI for quite awhile. I am not sure the administration would accept that kind of deal. I am not sure the administration is looking for long-term gains. OTOH it may be a good way to pressure Putin and explain a new willingness to help Ukraine.

[Mick]

Given the amount of American farmland that the Chinese have purchased (about 347,000 acres) I wonder if they would participate in the pre-war negotiation and post-war "rebuilding" of Ukraine through purchasing Ukrainian wheat farms, either fallow or underproducing? I know Ukraine has returned to about 90% of pre-war levels...I wonder if they would welcome the investment? After all, China is Ukraine's largest trading partner (about $19.3 billion in 2021) and Ukraine was one of the earliest supporters of China's Belt and Road initiative.

[Mick]

Given the amount of American farmland that the Chinese have purchased (about 347,000 acres) I wonder if they would participate in the pre-war negotiation and post-war "rebuilding" of Ukraine through purchasing Ukrainian wheat farms, either fallow or underproducing? I know Ukraine has returned to about 90% of pre-war levels...I wonder if they would welcome the investment? After all, China is Ukraine's largest trading partner (about $19.3 billion in 2021) and Ukraine was one of the earliest supporters of China's Belt and Road initiative.

[TrumpCard]

I can get behind this proposal to prioritize the return of POWs and kidnapped Ukrainians in the anticipated negotiations:  
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...r-release/

At one point in time, I thought it was realistic for Ukraine to re-capture most of the land that Russia has stolen.  For a variety of reasons, that now seems implausible.  I know there are risks associated with giving land to Russia, but I don't think those risks are avoidable.  The loss of even more innocent lives may be avoidable though.

[TrumpCard]

I can get behind this proposal to prioritize the return of POWs and kidnapped Ukrainians in the anticipated negotiations:  
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...r-release/

At one point in time, I thought it was realistic for Ukraine to re-capture most of the land that Russia has stolen.  For a variety of reasons, that now seems implausible.  I know there are risks associated with giving land to Russia, but I don't think those risks are avoidable.  The loss of even more innocent lives may be avoidable though.

[fullmetal]

North Korean troops might be back on the frontlines in Kursk.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cednp7q41l2o

[fullmetal]

North Korean troops might be back on the frontlines in Kursk.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cednp7q41l2o

[Mick]

Revealed: confidential plan to put Ukraine in a stranglehold

The Telegraph is reporting that the current administration wants a $500 billion payback from the Ukraine for ongoing support, including joint ventures on mineral extraction.

[Mick]

Revealed: confidential plan to put Ukraine in a stranglehold

The Telegraph is reporting that the current administration wants a $500 billion payback from the Ukraine for ongoing support, including joint ventures on mineral extraction.

[TrumpCard]

Sovereign debt has value as long as the country remains willing to pay.

[TrumpCard]

Sovereign debt has value as long as the country remains willing to pay.

[Goose]

Sovereign debt has value as long as the country remains willing and able to pay.

Suggested modification.

[Goose]

Sovereign debt has value as long as the country remains willing and able to pay.

Suggested modification.

[ADPinWDC]

I don't think any here have mentioned the aid-for-resources statement by the US President.  With so much going on in US politics, did people miss it, or just think it was bluster or positioning?

Given the current US administration thinking with wallets instead of hearts, this is somewhat believable to me.  Indeed, it could even lead to US investment (rebuilding) in Ukraine after the war, if Ukraine survives in some form.  It also gives the current US administration a story as to why it would support the Ukraine side after previously being negative about the cost.   In a sense, any raw materials the US gets from Ukraine, they are worth double if they would otherwise wind up in Russian hands.

The quantity of immediately available raw materials in Ukraine is generally vastly overstated. Raw materials are at least notionally present in many locations. In almost all cases there is no ongoing extraction and no on-the-ground sampling of exactly what ore concentration, ore chemistry, and ore body size is involved. Ukraine would have to do the prospecting, select appropriate locations and build mines/refining facilities before they could ship processed ore. If the current administration would accept a very long-range "earn out" period and if the investment capital required was made available, it could work.

Long term, it might be a good investment but there will be no ROI for quite awhile. I am not sure the administration would accept that kind of deal. I am not sure the administration is looking for long-term gains. OTOH it may be a good way to pressure Putin and explain a new willingness to help Ukraine.

   

---  YES, agree strongly with Goose... having been to Ukraine.  
1)  Totally agree on vast overstatement, with no real recent analysis of mineral assays, cost of access, refinement... 
I visited Kyiv in March 2023 with an energy project team (getting the lights back on).  
In general, there is a big deficiency of "business thinking" around the table.   Very, very few MBAs.  
"How much investment would be required?" is just seen as Government (Soviet) budget, not investment.  They take it for granted. 
Ukrainians somehow are fed a really false narrative about "TRILLIONS" in rare earths, titanium, beryllium, etc.   It's fraudulent. 
Some think they just get a basket and roam around to scoop up nuggets of gold, silver, etc. 

2)  Americans are not thinking, "just with wallet, not heart".  This is false -- though the Int'l media likes to promote that narrative. 
Ending bloodshed is the number one objective of a peace deal. 
Bessent did not articulate his approach well; He's a hedge fund guy, not a PR maven.   Ukraine will need EXTERNAL investment.
He is talking about bringing capital to JVs.   There is no other model for Ukraine.  Without capital, they are dead.  

3)  Europe is stuck in a "Versailles model" Peace Conf like 1919, where all the parties gather round a table.   NO. 
That is an assembly of non-equals with much squawking, like a UN General Assembly.   Counter-productive. 
The Trump Power model is:  only the two principals that can actually make a difference will frame a deal.  

Putin does not recognize Zelensky as the leader of Ukraine because his term expired and he is operating under martial law. 
Yes, this is a unilateral power play.  Putin is a dick; we know this.  But, Putin will meet with Trump.  Start there. 
Putin can determine bloodshed -- he wields serious Oreshnik MIRV missiles which Europe lacks.  He can reduce Kyiv to ashes.  
  
4)  Initially, there will be no territorial give backs.  This will evolve.  The idea is to stop bloodshed first.  
Some in Europe want to mount up another 200,000 soldiers (they don't have) and "show Putin".   Madness.  
That will sacrifice the next generation of Ukrainians.  Another year of slaughter will not regain any territory.  Sorry. 
Europe is not at the table initially because, frankly, they don't bring much to the party:  

*  More than HALF the NATO Euro-slackers have run below their 2% GDP "commitment" on NATO for more than 20 years.  
Sorry -- that matters. 
* Now... the majority of Ukrainians want "the war to end".   They are done.  Exhausted.  This is a shift from 2022.  
* My daughter, as a US Army Logistics captain served on the NATO front (2015-2018) out of Germany.  
She observed: "All the EU soldiers were older -- mid30s to mid40s -- few of their young people serve in the military."  
"Imagine the weekend warriors in the First Blood Rambo movie (1982) that muster to attack Rambo. 
"They know how to fix vehicles, but their military skills are not up to par.  Germans are more worried about lead in trees." 
* She did not leave with much confidence that Europe can defend itself (EU Army).   

Air Force (jets) is probably better with F-16s and F-35s... but that is a pathway to WW3.  Is that what you want? 
I think the air force resources in the West prevent Putin from trying to advance on other countries.  

* Politically, Europe is suffering a lot of turmoil with half their governments in some state of turmoil, diminishing legitimacy. 
Americans truly do not understand this.  Europe holds elections that NOBODY wins.  

What to do?   
A) End the bloodshed.   That takes a deal with Russia.  Only USA can forge that deal.  Real-politik.  That's how it is.  Sorry. 
B)  Build a slow ramp that can enable Ukraine to recover.  Right now, the Govt cannot meet payroll.  
Japan is interesting:  their engineering firms are already in Kyiv (they cannot provide military aid), and offering to de-mine large regions. 
C)  Ukraine does not have fertile soil today.  The potential exists, but they exhausted their soil with poor management practices. 
A massive soil amendment campaign is required to restore the fertility -- and Europe could help with that.  
Ukraine must produce exports:  Agriculture and minerals.  -- their currency is worthless.   

There are NO ideal solutions.  First, stop the bloodshed.  Save young people.

[ADPinWDC]

I don't think any here have mentioned the aid-for-resources statement by the US President.  With so much going on in US politics, did people miss it, or just think it was bluster or positioning?

Given the current US administration thinking with wallets instead of hearts, this is somewhat believable to me.  Indeed, it could even lead to US investment (rebuilding) in Ukraine after the war, if Ukraine survives in some form.  It also gives the current US administration a story as to why it would support the Ukraine side after previously being negative about the cost.   In a sense, any raw materials the US gets from Ukraine, they are worth double if they would otherwise wind up in Russian hands.

The quantity of immediately available raw materials in Ukraine is generally vastly overstated. Raw materials are at least notionally present in many locations. In almost all cases there is no ongoing extraction and no on-the-ground sampling of exactly what ore concentration, ore chemistry, and ore body size is involved. Ukraine would have to do the prospecting, select appropriate locations and build mines/refining facilities before they could ship processed ore. If the current administration would accept a very long-range "earn out" period and if the investment capital required was made available, it could work.

Long term, it might be a good investment but there will be no ROI for quite awhile. I am not sure the administration would accept that kind of deal. I am not sure the administration is looking for long-term gains. OTOH it may be a good way to pressure Putin and explain a new willingness to help Ukraine.

   

---  YES, agree strongly with Goose... having been to Ukraine.  
1)  Totally agree on vast overstatement, with no real recent analysis of mineral assays, cost of access, refinement... 
I visited Kyiv in March 2023 with an energy project team (getting the lights back on).  
In general, there is a big deficiency of "business thinking" around the table.   Very, very few MBAs.  
"How much investment would be required?" is just seen as Government (Soviet) budget, not investment.  They take it for granted. 
Ukrainians somehow are fed a really false narrative about "TRILLIONS" in rare earths, titanium, beryllium, etc.   It's fraudulent. 
Some think they just get a basket and roam around to scoop up nuggets of gold, silver, etc. 

2)  Americans are not thinking, "just with wallet, not heart".  This is false -- though the Int'l media likes to promote that narrative. 
Ending bloodshed is the number one objective of a peace deal. 
Bessent did not articulate his approach well; He's a hedge fund guy, not a PR maven.   Ukraine will need EXTERNAL investment.
He is talking about bringing capital to JVs.   There is no other model for Ukraine.  Without capital, they are dead.  

3)  Europe is stuck in a "Versailles model" Peace Conf like 1919, where all the parties gather round a table.   NO. 
That is an assembly of non-equals with much squawking, like a UN General Assembly.   Counter-productive. 
The Trump Power model is:  only the two principals that can actually make a difference will frame a deal.  

Putin does not recognize Zelensky as the leader of Ukraine because his term expired and he is operating under martial law. 
Yes, this is a unilateral power play.  Putin is a dick; we know this.  But, Putin will meet with Trump.  Start there. 
Putin can determine bloodshed -- he wields serious Oreshnik MIRV missiles which Europe lacks.  He can reduce Kyiv to ashes.  
  
4)  Initially, there will be no territorial give backs.  This will evolve.  The idea is to stop bloodshed first.  
Some in Europe want to mount up another 200,000 soldiers (they don't have) and "show Putin".   Madness.  
That will sacrifice the next generation of Ukrainians.  Another year of slaughter will not regain any territory.  Sorry. 
Europe is not at the table initially because, frankly, they don't bring much to the party:  

*  More than HALF the NATO Euro-slackers have run below their 2% GDP "commitment" on NATO for more than 20 years.  
Sorry -- that matters. 
* Now... the majority of Ukrainians want "the war to end".   They are done.  Exhausted.  This is a shift from 2022.  
* My daughter, as a US Army Logistics captain served on the NATO front (2015-2018) out of Germany.  
She observed: "All the EU soldiers were older -- mid30s to mid40s -- few of their young people serve in the military."  
"Imagine the weekend warriors in the First Blood Rambo movie (1982) that muster to attack Rambo. 
"They know how to fix vehicles, but their military skills are not up to par.  Germans are more worried about lead in trees." 
* She did not leave with much confidence that Europe can defend itself (EU Army).   

Air Force (jets) is probably better with F-16s and F-35s... but that is a pathway to WW3.  Is that what you want? 
I think the air force resources in the West prevent Putin from trying to advance on other countries.  

* Politically, Europe is suffering a lot of turmoil with half their governments in some state of turmoil, diminishing legitimacy. 
Americans truly do not understand this.  Europe holds elections that NOBODY wins.  

What to do?   
A) End the bloodshed.   That takes a deal with Russia.  Only USA can forge that deal.  Real-politik.  That's how it is.  Sorry. 
B)  Build a slow ramp that can enable Ukraine to recover.  Right now, the Govt cannot meet payroll.  
Japan is interesting:  their engineering firms are already in Kyiv (they cannot provide military aid), and offering to de-mine large regions. 
C)  Ukraine does not have fertile soil today.  The potential exists, but they exhausted their soil with poor management practices. 
A massive soil amendment campaign is required to restore the fertility -- and Europe could help with that.  
Ukraine must produce exports:  Agriculture and minerals.  -- their currency is worthless.   

There are NO ideal solutions.  First, stop the bloodshed.  Save young people.

[TrumpCard]

I agree Versailles was squabbling among non-equals.   
Even though the U.S. economy and military are stronger than Russia's, I still don't think Trump/Putin is a negotiation among equals.  
Ukraine is in Russia's backyard.  Russia has an enormous number of troops committed.  
The U.S. is committed to putting itself first.  The U.S. has no interest in starting a war or using nukes as an equalizer.
I fear Russia will get 20% of Ukraine for a ceasefire and that Russia still will be in a position to re-start the war with more leverage in a few years.
The only escape from this eventuality is a very large U.S. troop deployment to the new Russia/Ukraine border, which seems highly unlikely.

[TrumpCard]

I agree Versailles was squabbling among non-equals.   
Even though the U.S. economy and military are stronger than Russia's, I still don't think Trump/Putin is a negotiation among equals.  
Ukraine is in Russia's backyard.  Russia has an enormous number of troops committed.  
The U.S. is committed to putting itself first.  The U.S. has no interest in starting a war or using nukes as an equalizer.
I fear Russia will get 20% of Ukraine for a ceasefire and that Russia still will be in a position to re-start the war with more leverage in a few years.
The only escape from this eventuality is a very large U.S. troop deployment to the new Russia/Ukraine border, which seems highly unlikely.