[Goose]

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/new-chinese-cr...e_vignette

This article discusses the Russian's use of multi-element arrays and adaptive beamforming to "null out" jamming signals. The figure shows a pattern with nulls in the X-Y plane. For simply rejecting jammers, it is unclear why the 16 element array would be that much more effective than the 8 element array. 8 elements is plenty to null out one or even two jamming signals. 4 elements works well on one jamming signal. The larger number of elements is useful in beamforming to "point" at the desired satellites while at the same time creating deep nulls pointing at the jammers. That is probably what is being done.

The antenna pattern of course exists in 3 dimensions, not two. It is a function of  both bearing and elevation. The elevation null is far more useful because the jammers are on the surface of the earth and the satellites are well above it. There are programs you can get for your cell phone that will display the almanac elevation of all the visible satellites. These programs clearly show that at reasonable latitudes there are always enough satellites in view at elevations well above the horizon to get a good "fix". The array can form beams that point at these satellites. The array also allows measurement of the actual elevation angle of received signals. If the measured elevation is anywhere near the horizon null that signal out.

[Goose]

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/new-chinese-cr...e_vignette

This article discusses the Russian's use of multi-element arrays and adaptive beamforming to "null out" jamming signals. The figure shows a pattern with nulls in the X-Y plane. For simply rejecting jammers, it is unclear why the 16 element array would be that much more effective than the 8 element array. 8 elements is plenty to null out one or even two jamming signals. 4 elements works well on one jamming signal. The larger number of elements is useful in beamforming to "point" at the desired satellites while at the same time creating deep nulls pointing at the jammers. That is probably what is being done.

The antenna pattern of course exists in 3 dimensions, not two. It is a function of  both bearing and elevation. The elevation null is far more useful because the jammers are on the surface of the earth and the satellites are well above it. There are programs you can get for your cell phone that will display the almanac elevation of all the visible satellites. These programs clearly show that at reasonable latitudes there are always enough satellites in view at elevations well above the horizon to get a good "fix". The array can form beams that point at these satellites. The array also allows measurement of the actual elevation angle of received signals. If the measured elevation is anywhere near the horizon null that signal out.

[M T]

I guess Ukraine was doing well in the naval war, so that’s where Putin got the Trump to stop Ukraine.

[M T]

I guess Ukraine was doing well in the naval war, so that’s where Putin got the Trump to stop Ukraine.

[martyup]

Here's an interesting article about Stanford grads taking positions in the defense industry.

https://sfstandard.com/2025/03/12/stanfo...52ca078d0c

[martyup]

Here's an interesting article about Stanford grads taking positions in the defense industry.

https://sfstandard.com/2025/03/12/stanfo...52ca078d0c

[ADPinWDC]

As I read this, the US-Ukraine negotiations = No Deal.  Europe wields the upper hand.
[Euro News, NYTimes reports]

March 28: 
New draft of US minerals deal revives fears over Ukraine's EU accession
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/...-accession
By giving American companies preferential treatment in Ukraine, the proposed minerals deal runs the risk of contradicting the EU's competition and single market rules, which provide for equal and fair access.
The minerals deal that Kyiv and Washington are currently negotiating will be closely examined in Brussels to determine its compatibility with Ukraine's membership bid, the European Commission has said, as the latest version of the text revives fears it would derail the country's ambitions to join the bloc.  The accession process requires candidate nations to gradually align with EU legislation, including fundamental principles of fair competition and non-discrimination.
"The line has been conveyed such an agreement would need to be looked into from the perspective of the relations between Ukraine and the EU and, notably, in terms of the accession negotiations," Paula Pinho, the Commission's chief spokesperson, said on Friday during a press conference.

1) The bottom line is that Ukraine (Zelensky) values EU accession (distinct from NATO membership) above all else,
even if giving up territory in the East to Russia.  EU is promising more.  Even if faking it.  Geography matters. 

2) Zelensky says he does not consider PRIOR aid provided by USA as a "credit" of value. (!?)
This is a breakdown point, as I see it.  €114 billion estimate, but the amount varies. 

3) Ukraine rejects the 3-2 Board of the Fund "CONTROL" of Mineral Assets.  USA with 3 of 5 board votes = Non-starter. 

4) The EU sees the US deal as blocking EU accession by violating fair competition rules.  The EU wields the upper hand. Killing the deal.
Basically, the EU is vetoing the USA - UKR deal negotiations.  Ukraine wants EU accession more than anything else.

5) Ukraine is still pushing for Security Guarantees -- which is a non-starter for USA, not just Trump,
but US Congress will not approve troops for that ... as a "Back door Article 5".

The EU will offer faux Security Guarantees, just like their 2% commitments to NATO.  They cannot field armies and are out of ammo. 
They will massage it and fake it to make UKR feel good.  Zelensky sees EU Accession as the top political victory. 
But, EU is suffering indigestion over possible "Rules of Engagement" with Russia on sending troops into Ukraine. 
"Can the EU troops shoot at anything?"  

What is the role of USA?  Now, I think any USA role would need to flow via NATO, and torquing by EU. 

But, the biggest problem remains that Ukraine can not physically mount another year of war.  
"Standing up to Putin" sounds tough, but what does it mean exactly?  
Ukraine doesn't have another 50,000 troops to throw at the Donbas.  And it would not move the needle. 
Europe doesn't have 50,000 troops for Donbas minefields either

-----

[ADPinWDC]

As I read this, the US-Ukraine negotiations = No Deal.  Europe wields the upper hand.
[Euro News, NYTimes reports]

March 28: 
New draft of US minerals deal revives fears over Ukraine's EU accession
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/...-accession
By giving American companies preferential treatment in Ukraine, the proposed minerals deal runs the risk of contradicting the EU's competition and single market rules, which provide for equal and fair access.
The minerals deal that Kyiv and Washington are currently negotiating will be closely examined in Brussels to determine its compatibility with Ukraine's membership bid, the European Commission has said, as the latest version of the text revives fears it would derail the country's ambitions to join the bloc.  The accession process requires candidate nations to gradually align with EU legislation, including fundamental principles of fair competition and non-discrimination.
"The line has been conveyed such an agreement would need to be looked into from the perspective of the relations between Ukraine and the EU and, notably, in terms of the accession negotiations," Paula Pinho, the Commission's chief spokesperson, said on Friday during a press conference.

1) The bottom line is that Ukraine (Zelensky) values EU accession (distinct from NATO membership) above all else,
even if giving up territory in the East to Russia.  EU is promising more.  Even if faking it.  Geography matters. 

2) Zelensky says he does not consider PRIOR aid provided by USA as a "credit" of value. (!?)
This is a breakdown point, as I see it.  €114 billion estimate, but the amount varies. 

3) Ukraine rejects the 3-2 Board of the Fund "CONTROL" of Mineral Assets.  USA with 3 of 5 board votes = Non-starter. 

4) The EU sees the US deal as blocking EU accession by violating fair competition rules.  The EU wields the upper hand. Killing the deal.
Basically, the EU is vetoing the USA - UKR deal negotiations.  Ukraine wants EU accession more than anything else.

5) Ukraine is still pushing for Security Guarantees -- which is a non-starter for USA, not just Trump,
but US Congress will not approve troops for that ... as a "Back door Article 5".

The EU will offer faux Security Guarantees, just like their 2% commitments to NATO.  They cannot field armies and are out of ammo. 
They will massage it and fake it to make UKR feel good.  Zelensky sees EU Accession as the top political victory. 
But, EU is suffering indigestion over possible "Rules of Engagement" with Russia on sending troops into Ukraine. 
"Can the EU troops shoot at anything?"  

What is the role of USA?  Now, I think any USA role would need to flow via NATO, and torquing by EU. 

But, the biggest problem remains that Ukraine can not physically mount another year of war.  
"Standing up to Putin" sounds tough, but what does it mean exactly?  
Ukraine doesn't have another 50,000 troops to throw at the Donbas.  And it would not move the needle. 
Europe doesn't have 50,000 troops for Donbas minefields either

-----

[GK3]

As I read this, the US-Ukraine negotiations = No Deal.  Europe wields the upper hand.
[Euro News, NYTimes reports]

March 28: 
New draft of US minerals deal revives fears over Ukraine's EU accession
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/...-accession
By giving American companies preferential treatment in Ukraine, the proposed minerals deal runs the risk of contradicting the EU's competition and single market rules, which provide for equal and fair access.
The minerals deal that Kyiv and Washington are currently negotiating will be closely examined in Brussels to determine its compatibility with Ukraine's membership bid, the European Commission has said, as the latest version of the text revives fears it would derail the country's ambitions to join the bloc.  The accession process requires candidate nations to gradually align with EU legislation, including fundamental principles of fair competition and non-discrimination.
"The line has been conveyed such an agreement would need to be looked into from the perspective of the relations between Ukraine and the EU and, notably, in terms of the accession negotiations," Paula Pinho, the Commission's chief spokesperson, said on Friday during a press conference.

1) The bottom line is that Ukraine (Zelensky) values EU accession (distinct from NATO membership) above all else,
even if giving up territory in the East to Russia.  EU is promising more.  Even if faking it.  Geography matters. 

2) Zelensky says he does not consider PRIOR aid provided by USA as a "credit" of value. (!?)
This is a breakdown point, as I see it.  €114 billion estimate, but the amount varies. 

3) Ukraine rejects the 3-2 Board of the Fund "CONTROL" of Mineral Assets.  USA with 3 of 5 board votes = Non-starter. 

4) The EU sees the US deal as blocking EU accession by violating fair competition rules.  The EU wields the upper hand. Killing the deal.
Basically, the EU is vetoing the USA - UKR deal negotiations.  Ukraine wants EU accession more than anything else.

5) Ukraine is still pushing for Security Guarantees -- which is a non-starter for USA, not just Trump,
but US Congress will not approve troops for that ... as a "Back door Article 5".

The EU will offer faux Security Guarantees, just like their 2% commitments to NATO.  They cannot field armies and are out of ammo. 
They will massage it and fake it to make UKR feel good.  Zelensky sees EU Accession as the top political victory. 
But, EU is suffering indigestion over possible "Rules of Engagement" with Russia on sending troops into Ukraine. 
"Can the EU troops shoot at anything?"  

What is the role of USA?  Now, I think any USA role would need to flow via NATO, and torquing by EU. 

But, the biggest problem remains that Ukraine can not physically mount another year of war.  
"Standing up to Putin" sounds tough, but what does it means what exactly?  
Ukraine doesn't have another 50,000 troops to throw at the Donbas.  And it would not move the needle. 

Andy

-----

It always seemed to me that the proposal was nonsense. Why would we invest millions or billions in rare earth deposits next door to Putin and not in the continental USA.  We need to develop our local deposits and I was under the impression we had some fairly sizeable deposits now being developed.  If push comes to shove we do not want to be dependent on sources to easily shut down by potential advisaries.

[GK3]

As I read this, the US-Ukraine negotiations = No Deal.  Europe wields the upper hand.
[Euro News, NYTimes reports]

March 28: 
New draft of US minerals deal revives fears over Ukraine's EU accession
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/...-accession
By giving American companies preferential treatment in Ukraine, the proposed minerals deal runs the risk of contradicting the EU's competition and single market rules, which provide for equal and fair access.
The minerals deal that Kyiv and Washington are currently negotiating will be closely examined in Brussels to determine its compatibility with Ukraine's membership bid, the European Commission has said, as the latest version of the text revives fears it would derail the country's ambitions to join the bloc.  The accession process requires candidate nations to gradually align with EU legislation, including fundamental principles of fair competition and non-discrimination.
"The line has been conveyed such an agreement would need to be looked into from the perspective of the relations between Ukraine and the EU and, notably, in terms of the accession negotiations," Paula Pinho, the Commission's chief spokesperson, said on Friday during a press conference.

1) The bottom line is that Ukraine (Zelensky) values EU accession (distinct from NATO membership) above all else,
even if giving up territory in the East to Russia.  EU is promising more.  Even if faking it.  Geography matters. 

2) Zelensky says he does not consider PRIOR aid provided by USA as a "credit" of value. (!?)
This is a breakdown point, as I see it.  €114 billion estimate, but the amount varies. 

3) Ukraine rejects the 3-2 Board of the Fund "CONTROL" of Mineral Assets.  USA with 3 of 5 board votes = Non-starter. 

4) The EU sees the US deal as blocking EU accession by violating fair competition rules.  The EU wields the upper hand. Killing the deal.
Basically, the EU is vetoing the USA - UKR deal negotiations.  Ukraine wants EU accession more than anything else.

5) Ukraine is still pushing for Security Guarantees -- which is a non-starter for USA, not just Trump,
but US Congress will not approve troops for that ... as a "Back door Article 5".

The EU will offer faux Security Guarantees, just like their 2% commitments to NATO.  They cannot field armies and are out of ammo. 
They will massage it and fake it to make UKR feel good.  Zelensky sees EU Accession as the top political victory. 
But, EU is suffering indigestion over possible "Rules of Engagement" with Russia on sending troops into Ukraine. 
"Can the EU troops shoot at anything?"  

What is the role of USA?  Now, I think any USA role would need to flow via NATO, and torquing by EU. 

But, the biggest problem remains that Ukraine can not physically mount another year of war.  
"Standing up to Putin" sounds tough, but what does it means what exactly?  
Ukraine doesn't have another 50,000 troops to throw at the Donbas.  And it would not move the needle. 

Andy

-----

It always seemed to me that the proposal was nonsense. Why would we invest millions or billions in rare earth deposits next door to Putin and not in the continental USA.  We need to develop our local deposits and I was under the impression we had some fairly sizeable deposits now being developed.  If push comes to shove we do not want to be dependent on sources to easily shut down by potential advisaries.

[TrumpCard]

3-D chess?

[TrumpCard]

3-D chess?

[Mick]

It always seemed to me that the proposal was nonsense. Why would we invest millions or billions in rare earth deposits next door to Putin and not in the continental USA.  We need to develop our local deposits and I was under the impression we had some fairly sizeable deposits now being developed.  If push comes to shove we do not want to be dependent on sources to easily shut down by potential adversaries.

It seems to me that Putin and/or his successors will one day occupy Ukraine if not take it over outright, unless Europe gets its collective act together, since it doesn't appear that there will be any American support. Coupled with the fact that it takes a long runway to develop rare earth materials, it seems to me (to your point), there are more easily accessible rare earth minerals available in America. And whatever our future relationship becomes, I would imagine they would be more easily accessed in Canada and/or Greenland vs. Ukraine.

There are 17 rare earth metals (scandium, yttrium, lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, neodymium, promethium, samarium, europium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, holmium, erbium, thulium, ytterbium, and lutetium). China produces 69% of global supply. Here's the total rare earth reserves, expressed in tons, by country.

China 44M
Vietnam 22M
Brazil 21M
Russia 10M
India 6.9M
Australia 5.7M
United States 1.8M
Greenland 1.5M
Tanzania 890K
Canada 830K
South Africa 790K
Thailand 4.5K

[Mick]

It always seemed to me that the proposal was nonsense. Why would we invest millions or billions in rare earth deposits next door to Putin and not in the continental USA.  We need to develop our local deposits and I was under the impression we had some fairly sizeable deposits now being developed.  If push comes to shove we do not want to be dependent on sources to easily shut down by potential adversaries.

It seems to me that Putin and/or his successors will one day occupy Ukraine if not take it over outright, unless Europe gets its collective act together, since it doesn't appear that there will be any American support. Coupled with the fact that it takes a long runway to develop rare earth materials, it seems to me (to your point), there are more easily accessible rare earth minerals available in America. And whatever our future relationship becomes, I would imagine they would be more easily accessed in Canada and/or Greenland vs. Ukraine.

There are 17 rare earth metals (scandium, yttrium, lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, neodymium, promethium, samarium, europium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, holmium, erbium, thulium, ytterbium, and lutetium). China produces 69% of global supply. Here's the total rare earth reserves, expressed in tons, by country.

China 44M
Vietnam 22M
Brazil 21M
Russia 10M
India 6.9M
Australia 5.7M
United States 1.8M
Greenland 1.5M
Tanzania 890K
Canada 830K
South Africa 790K
Thailand 4.5K

[Goose]

As I read this, the US-Ukraine negotiations = No Deal.  Europe wields the upper hand.
[Euro News, NYTimes reports]

March 28: 
New draft of US minerals deal revives fears over Ukraine's EU accession
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/...-accession
By giving American companies preferential treatment in Ukraine, the proposed minerals deal runs the risk of contradicting the EU's competition and single market rules, which provide for equal and fair access.
The minerals deal that Kyiv and Washington are currently negotiating will be closely examined in Brussels to determine its compatibility with Ukraine's membership bid, the European Commission has said, as the latest version of the text revives fears it would derail the country's ambitions to join the bloc.  The accession process requires candidate nations to gradually align with EU legislation, including fundamental principles of fair competition and non-discrimination.
"The line has been conveyed such an agreement would need to be looked into from the perspective of the relations between Ukraine and the EU and, notably, in terms of the accession negotiations," Paula Pinho, the Commission's chief spokesperson, said on Friday during a press conference.

1) The bottom line is that Ukraine (Zelensky) values EU accession (distinct from NATO membership) above all else,
even if giving up territory in the East to Russia.  EU is promising more.  Even if faking it.  Geography matters. 

2) Zelensky says he does not consider PRIOR aid provided by USA as a "credit" of value. (!?)
This is a breakdown point, as I see it.  €114 billion estimate, but the amount varies. 

3) Ukraine rejects the 3-2 Board of the Fund "CONTROL" of Mineral Assets.  USA with 3 of 5 board votes = Non-starter. 

4) The EU sees the US deal as blocking EU accession by violating fair competition rules.  The EU wields the upper hand. Killing the deal.
Basically, the EU is vetoing the USA - UKR deal negotiations.  Ukraine wants EU accession more than anything else.

5) Ukraine is still pushing for Security Guarantees -- which is a non-starter for USA, not just Trump,
but US Congress will not approve troops for that ... as a "Back door Article 5".

I am not sure why the (!?) in item 2. AFAIK the aid provided to Ukraine was exactly that, aid. It wasn't announced as lend-lease or with any "strings" attached. It was the same as the aid the US provided to China in WW II, South Korea in the Korean Police Action, Vietnam during our involvement there, Afghanistan, Iraq etc. Israel continues to receive military aid from the US for which we are not compensated.
https://www.state.gov/military-assistance-to-israel/
We also have commercial sales of military equipment both directions between the US and Israel, but that is outside of our outright military assistance.
 
The US provided direct assistance to Ukraine, both civil and military, because the administration determined it was in our national interest to do so. From Ukraine's point of view they were supplying the bodies and we were supplying the weapons. It represented a unity of interests, not a transactional relationship. I can understand, if not support, the decision to make future assistance to Ukraine a transactional activity. However that does not change history and I fully understand Ukraine not accepting the contention they incurred a debt by accepting what we gave them. 

The EU will offer faux Security Guarantees, just like their 2% commitments to NATO.  They cannot field armies and are out of ammo. 
They will massage it and fake it to make UKR feel good.  Zelensky sees EU Accession as the top political victory. 
But, EU is suffering indigestion over possible "Rules of Engagement" with Russia on sending troops into Ukraine. 
"Can the EU troops shoot at anything?"  

What is the role of USA?  Now, I think any USA role would need to flow via NATO, and torquing by EU. 

But, the biggest problem remains that Ukraine can not physically mount another year of war.  
"Standing up to Putin" sounds tough, but what does it mean exactly?  
Ukraine doesn't have another 50,000 troops to throw at the Donbas.  And it would not move the needle.

I am not sure that Ukraine doesn't have/can't raise 50,000 more troops. I would be more concerned that the troops would simply melt away because they felt the situation was hopeless. As far as Russia's intention's go, we should be finding out "soon". The weather in Ukraine is good and the mud is almost all gone. If Russia doesn't mount a significant offensive, it means one of two things. It could mean they too are running out of troops and/or will. It could also mean they expect to get what they want without fighting. We shall see.

Europe doesn't have 50,000 troops for Donbas minefields either

Europe could deploy the 50,000 troops if they had the political will. They don't, so it is moot. If 300,000 troops were needed, they couldn't provide it for at least a year. Even then, it would be unclear where the necessary material could be found. The US could provide the 50,000 troops, but we about 34 years ago made the decision that we were  not going to fight in Ukraine, period. That decision has remained intact.

[Goose]

As I read this, the US-Ukraine negotiations = No Deal.  Europe wields the upper hand.
[Euro News, NYTimes reports]

March 28: 
New draft of US minerals deal revives fears over Ukraine's EU accession
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/...-accession
By giving American companies preferential treatment in Ukraine, the proposed minerals deal runs the risk of contradicting the EU's competition and single market rules, which provide for equal and fair access.
The minerals deal that Kyiv and Washington are currently negotiating will be closely examined in Brussels to determine its compatibility with Ukraine's membership bid, the European Commission has said, as the latest version of the text revives fears it would derail the country's ambitions to join the bloc.  The accession process requires candidate nations to gradually align with EU legislation, including fundamental principles of fair competition and non-discrimination.
"The line has been conveyed such an agreement would need to be looked into from the perspective of the relations between Ukraine and the EU and, notably, in terms of the accession negotiations," Paula Pinho, the Commission's chief spokesperson, said on Friday during a press conference.

1) The bottom line is that Ukraine (Zelensky) values EU accession (distinct from NATO membership) above all else,
even if giving up territory in the East to Russia.  EU is promising more.  Even if faking it.  Geography matters. 

2) Zelensky says he does not consider PRIOR aid provided by USA as a "credit" of value. (!?)
This is a breakdown point, as I see it.  €114 billion estimate, but the amount varies. 

3) Ukraine rejects the 3-2 Board of the Fund "CONTROL" of Mineral Assets.  USA with 3 of 5 board votes = Non-starter. 

4) The EU sees the US deal as blocking EU accession by violating fair competition rules.  The EU wields the upper hand. Killing the deal.
Basically, the EU is vetoing the USA - UKR deal negotiations.  Ukraine wants EU accession more than anything else.

5) Ukraine is still pushing for Security Guarantees -- which is a non-starter for USA, not just Trump,
but US Congress will not approve troops for that ... as a "Back door Article 5".

I am not sure why the (!?) in item 2. AFAIK the aid provided to Ukraine was exactly that, aid. It wasn't announced as lend-lease or with any "strings" attached. It was the same as the aid the US provided to China in WW II, South Korea in the Korean Police Action, Vietnam during our involvement there, Afghanistan, Iraq etc. Israel continues to receive military aid from the US for which we are not compensated.
https://www.state.gov/military-assistance-to-israel/
We also have commercial sales of military equipment both directions between the US and Israel, but that is outside of our outright military assistance.
 
The US provided direct assistance to Ukraine, both civil and military, because the administration determined it was in our national interest to do so. From Ukraine's point of view they were supplying the bodies and we were supplying the weapons. It represented a unity of interests, not a transactional relationship. I can understand, if not support, the decision to make future assistance to Ukraine a transactional activity. However that does not change history and I fully understand Ukraine not accepting the contention they incurred a debt by accepting what we gave them. 

The EU will offer faux Security Guarantees, just like their 2% commitments to NATO.  They cannot field armies and are out of ammo. 
They will massage it and fake it to make UKR feel good.  Zelensky sees EU Accession as the top political victory. 
But, EU is suffering indigestion over possible "Rules of Engagement" with Russia on sending troops into Ukraine. 
"Can the EU troops shoot at anything?"  

What is the role of USA?  Now, I think any USA role would need to flow via NATO, and torquing by EU. 

But, the biggest problem remains that Ukraine can not physically mount another year of war.  
"Standing up to Putin" sounds tough, but what does it mean exactly?  
Ukraine doesn't have another 50,000 troops to throw at the Donbas.  And it would not move the needle.

I am not sure that Ukraine doesn't have/can't raise 50,000 more troops. I would be more concerned that the troops would simply melt away because they felt the situation was hopeless. As far as Russia's intention's go, we should be finding out "soon". The weather in Ukraine is good and the mud is almost all gone. If Russia doesn't mount a significant offensive, it means one of two things. It could mean they too are running out of troops and/or will. It could also mean they expect to get what they want without fighting. We shall see.

Europe doesn't have 50,000 troops for Donbas minefields either

Europe could deploy the 50,000 troops if they had the political will. They don't, so it is moot. If 300,000 troops were needed, they couldn't provide it for at least a year. Even then, it would be unclear where the necessary material could be found. The US could provide the 50,000 troops, but we about 34 years ago made the decision that we were  not going to fight in Ukraine, period. That decision has remained intact.

[TrumpCard]

If the US wants to extort Ukraine, it can. It doesn’t need the fake justification that prior military aid created a debt.

[TrumpCard]

If the US wants to extort Ukraine, it can. It doesn’t need the fake justification that prior military aid created a debt.

[gocard14]

1743259936[/url]']

1743257203[/url]']
As I read this, the US-Ukraine negotiations = No Deal.  Europe wields the upper hand.
[Euro News, NYTimes reports]

March 28: 
New draft of US minerals deal revives fears over Ukraine's EU accession
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/...-accession
By giving American companies preferential treatment in Ukraine, the proposed minerals deal runs the risk of contradicting the EU's competition and single market rules, which provide for equal and fair access.
The minerals deal that Kyiv and Washington are currently negotiating will be closely examined in Brussels to determine its compatibility with Ukraine's membership bid, the European Commission has said, as the latest version of the text revives fears it would derail the country's ambitions to join the bloc.  The accession process requires candidate nations to gradually align with EU legislation, including fundamental principles of fair competition and non-discrimination.
"The line has been conveyed such an agreement would need to be looked into from the perspective of the relations between Ukraine and the EU and, notably, in terms of the accession negotiations," Paula Pinho, the Commission's chief spokesperson, said on Friday during a press conference.

1) The bottom line is that Ukraine (Zelensky) values EU accession (distinct from NATO membership) above all else,
even if giving up territory in the East to Russia.  EU is promising more.  Even if faking it.  Geography matters. 

2) Zelensky says he does not consider PRIOR aid provided by USA as a "credit" of value. (!?)
This is a breakdown point, as I see it.  €114 billion estimate, but the amount varies. 

3) Ukraine rejects the 3-2 Board of the Fund "CONTROL" of Mineral Assets.  USA with 3 of 5 board votes = Non-starter. 

4) The EU sees the US deal as blocking EU accession by violating fair competition rules.  The EU wields the upper hand. Killing the deal.
Basically, the EU is vetoing the USA - UKR deal negotiations.  Ukraine wants EU accession more than anything else.

5) Ukraine is still pushing for Security Guarantees -- which is a non-starter for USA, not just Trump,
but US Congress will not approve troops for that ... as a "Back door Article 5".

The EU will offer faux Security Guarantees, just like their 2% commitments to NATO.  They cannot field armies and are out of ammo. 
They will massage it and fake it to make UKR feel good.  Zelensky sees EU Accession as the top political victory. 
But, EU is suffering indigestion over possible "Rules of Engagement" with Russia on sending troops into Ukraine. 
"Can the EU troops shoot at anything?"  

What is the role of USA?  Now, I think any USA role would need to flow via NATO, and torquing by EU. 

But, the biggest problem remains that Ukraine can not physically mount another year of war.  
"Standing up to Putin" sounds tough, but what does it means what exactly?  
Ukraine doesn't have another 50,000 troops to throw at the Donbas.  And it would not move the needle. 

Andy

-----

It always seemed to me that the proposal was nonsense. Why would we invest millions or billions in rare earth deposits next door to Putin and not in the continental USA.  We need to develop our local deposits and I was under the impression we had some fairly sizeable deposits now being developed.  If push comes to shove we do not want to be dependent on sources to easily shut down by potential advisaries.

It's a lot easier to have projects that are an environmental issue in other people's backyards. 

That said, there is clear strategic value in cultivating a domestic supply which may supercede this.

[gocard14]

1743259936[/url]']

1743257203[/url]']
As I read this, the US-Ukraine negotiations = No Deal.  Europe wields the upper hand.
[Euro News, NYTimes reports]

March 28: 
New draft of US minerals deal revives fears over Ukraine's EU accession
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/...-accession
By giving American companies preferential treatment in Ukraine, the proposed minerals deal runs the risk of contradicting the EU's competition and single market rules, which provide for equal and fair access.
The minerals deal that Kyiv and Washington are currently negotiating will be closely examined in Brussels to determine its compatibility with Ukraine's membership bid, the European Commission has said, as the latest version of the text revives fears it would derail the country's ambitions to join the bloc.  The accession process requires candidate nations to gradually align with EU legislation, including fundamental principles of fair competition and non-discrimination.
"The line has been conveyed such an agreement would need to be looked into from the perspective of the relations between Ukraine and the EU and, notably, in terms of the accession negotiations," Paula Pinho, the Commission's chief spokesperson, said on Friday during a press conference.

1) The bottom line is that Ukraine (Zelensky) values EU accession (distinct from NATO membership) above all else,
even if giving up territory in the East to Russia.  EU is promising more.  Even if faking it.  Geography matters. 

2) Zelensky says he does not consider PRIOR aid provided by USA as a "credit" of value. (!?)
This is a breakdown point, as I see it.  €114 billion estimate, but the amount varies. 

3) Ukraine rejects the 3-2 Board of the Fund "CONTROL" of Mineral Assets.  USA with 3 of 5 board votes = Non-starter. 

4) The EU sees the US deal as blocking EU accession by violating fair competition rules.  The EU wields the upper hand. Killing the deal.
Basically, the EU is vetoing the USA - UKR deal negotiations.  Ukraine wants EU accession more than anything else.

5) Ukraine is still pushing for Security Guarantees -- which is a non-starter for USA, not just Trump,
but US Congress will not approve troops for that ... as a "Back door Article 5".

The EU will offer faux Security Guarantees, just like their 2% commitments to NATO.  They cannot field armies and are out of ammo. 
They will massage it and fake it to make UKR feel good.  Zelensky sees EU Accession as the top political victory. 
But, EU is suffering indigestion over possible "Rules of Engagement" with Russia on sending troops into Ukraine. 
"Can the EU troops shoot at anything?"  

What is the role of USA?  Now, I think any USA role would need to flow via NATO, and torquing by EU. 

But, the biggest problem remains that Ukraine can not physically mount another year of war.  
"Standing up to Putin" sounds tough, but what does it means what exactly?  
Ukraine doesn't have another 50,000 troops to throw at the Donbas.  And it would not move the needle. 

Andy

-----

It always seemed to me that the proposal was nonsense. Why would we invest millions or billions in rare earth deposits next door to Putin and not in the continental USA.  We need to develop our local deposits and I was under the impression we had some fairly sizeable deposits now being developed.  If push comes to shove we do not want to be dependent on sources to easily shut down by potential advisaries.

It's a lot easier to have projects that are an environmental issue in other people's backyards. 

That said, there is clear strategic value in cultivating a domestic supply which may supercede this.

[Goose]

If the US wants to extort Ukraine, it can. It doesn’t need the fake justification that prior military aid created a debt.

Agree. However I do not understand why the US would believe Ukraine would honor any agreement extorted from them when they had no other choice. What are we going to do if they refuse, invade Ukraine?

[Goose]

If the US wants to extort Ukraine, it can. It doesn’t need the fake justification that prior military aid created a debt.

Agree. However I do not understand why the US would believe Ukraine would honor any agreement extorted from them when they had no other choice. What are we going to do if they refuse, invade Ukraine?

[fullmetal]

That, but also, maybe they feel like if the US actually has skin in the game, Ukraine would be more likely to honor mineral rights agreements with the US than Russia, if Russia seized control of Ukraine.  Agreements may be renegotiated at a later date when survival is on the table right now.

[fullmetal]

That, but also, maybe they feel like if the US actually has skin in the game, Ukraine would be more likely to honor mineral rights agreements with the US than Russia, if Russia seized control of Ukraine.  Agreements may be renegotiated at a later date when survival is on the table right now.

[GK3]

That, but also, maybe they feel like if the US actually has skin in the game, Ukraine would be more likely to honor mineral rights agreements with the US than Russia, if Russia seized control of Ukraine.  Agreements may be renegotiated at a later date when survival is on the table right now.

If anyone has the interest, here is a fairly recent list of the rare explorations and developments in the USA.
https://www.google.com/search?q=developm...e&ie=UTF-8

If you end up in conflict, you don't want critical assets  located where they are subject to seizure or their shipment by sea and air would be subject to interdiction.  We have I believe the 2nd largest rare earth deposits in the world but have been slow to develop them due to extraction challenges and environmental concerns.
New research shows there maybe very large amounts of rare earth elements in the piles of coal ash across the USA.  Research is on going in how to get enough out to make it worth it.

Why give the money to Ukraine, spend it on developing assets here at home.  Ukraine can certainly use the money, but we need independence from foreign sources if possible.

[GK3]

That, but also, maybe they feel like if the US actually has skin in the game, Ukraine would be more likely to honor mineral rights agreements with the US than Russia, if Russia seized control of Ukraine.  Agreements may be renegotiated at a later date when survival is on the table right now.

If anyone has the interest, here is a fairly recent list of the rare explorations and developments in the USA.
https://www.google.com/search?q=developm...e&ie=UTF-8

If you end up in conflict, you don't want critical assets  located where they are subject to seizure or their shipment by sea and air would be subject to interdiction.  We have I believe the 2nd largest rare earth deposits in the world but have been slow to develop them due to extraction challenges and environmental concerns.
New research shows there maybe very large amounts of rare earth elements in the piles of coal ash across the USA.  Research is on going in how to get enough out to make it worth it.

Why give the money to Ukraine, spend it on developing assets here at home.  Ukraine can certainly use the money, but we need independence from foreign sources if possible.

[Goose]

If anyone has the interest, here is a fairly recent list of the rare explorations and developments in the USA.
https://www.google.com/search?q=developm...e&ie=UTF-8

If you end up in conflict, you don't want critical assets  located where they are subject to seizure or their shipment by sea and air would be subject to interdiction.  We have I believe the 2nd largest rare earth deposits in the world but have been slow to develop them due to extraction challenges and environmental concerns.
New research shows there maybe very large amounts of rare earth elements in the piles of coal ash across the USA.  Research is on going in how to get enough out to make it worth it.

Why give the money to Ukraine, spend it on developing assets here at home.  Ukraine can certainly use the money, but we need independence from foreign sources if possible.

The US has adequate supplies of most "rare earths" present in the country to exploit. Right now, that isn't really necessary because Mountain Pass mine can provide enough ore to meet domestic demand. It contains most (not all) the "rare earth" elements we need. This has been true for many, many years. The main problem is that it is impossible to refine these materials in the US using any process that meets both EPA standards and is economically competitive. For may years the output of Mountain Pass was shipped overseas to be refined. Some of the resulting products (much, much physically smaller volume after refining) were shipped back to the US. Much more of it was incorporated into "finished goods" in China for export back to the US. We were (are) effectively shipping our pollution issues elsewhere.

Mining and ore refining in the US face major economic impediments. US workers typically get much higher wages for the same work than the "foreign" competition. Copper is a "poster child" for this problem. Mining and refining are both "dirty" jobs. Mining is dangerous. It is also not an "urban" activity. For example, Mountain Pass overlooks the middle of nowhere. Finding people who are skilled enough and willing to do the work isn't easy.

Ore extraction in the US has serious regulatory costs. Much of this regulation exists because mining companies would simply abandon mines that were no longer economically viable. This left big holes in the ground with piles of overburden scattered across the landscape. Water pollution by heavy metals leaching out of the tailings was a serious problem, along with many others. Initial attempts at forcing remediation failed because companies would simply declare bankruptcy, leaving a toxic mess for the government to clean up. To stop this, both Federal and State laws compel mining companies to provide remediation insurance. This is vastly expensive and is required before the mine has any chance of returning money to pay for it.

Refining is even more problematic. There are usually several different ways to approach the problem. All are "polluting", some more than others. Companies operating in the US have to "mitigate" whatever residual pollution they produce. Companies operating in places where environmental regulation is slack to non-existent can chose their process based totally on economics and ignore the resulting environmental effects. That gives them a permanent massive competitive advantage. At one time we did refine "rare earths" in the US, but everybody doing it went out of business.

There are efforts being made in the US to restore end-to-end refining capability for rare earths in the US. Essentially all of them involve some kind of government subsidy. Experience teaches us that this approach does not work long-term. One of the "advantages" of capitalism is that the market inevitably finds the lowest-cost producer. Countries that seek even limited autarky pay a price. That price often turns out to be exorbitant. An example of this type of effort is the Jones act that attempts to preserve the merchant marine and shipbuilding in the US. It has manifestly failed to do so. We are now fighting a losing battle to build warships on the bones of what is left of our shipyards. Nobody yet has demonstrated an approach that is economically feasible. The government simply cannot afford to pay what it will take.
 
Rare earths are probably in the same category. Building an industry that can support the entire domestic demand for rare earths that is subsidized to the point of making it competitive with imports is going to be VERY expensive. Getting private investment in such industry will be problematic. If congress decides to stop paying an adequate subsidy the industry will collapse. Too risky. An industry that only supports a "defense essential" capacity is even less economically attractive. On top of that the economic effect of a wartime cutoff on domestic industry probably wouldn't be viable. I don't have an "answer", but IMO it is unlikely that rare earth refining in the US has a future as long as other countries are eager to let us export our pollution.  

The last thing we need is a source of raw materials that is far away and under perpetual threat from Russia. If these sites were for certain economically exploitable it is probable they would already have been by the Ukrainians "recently" and by the Soviet Union previously. An increase in demand can make previously unattractive mining opportunities marginally viable. The "marginally" part becomes a big problem in keeping them open. Nobody wants to risk many. many millions of dollars building an operation that 1) may not "pan out" in the first place, and 2)can be rendered uneconomic by a 2% move in the price of its product.

[Goose]

If anyone has the interest, here is a fairly recent list of the rare explorations and developments in the USA.
https://www.google.com/search?q=developm...e&ie=UTF-8

If you end up in conflict, you don't want critical assets  located where they are subject to seizure or their shipment by sea and air would be subject to interdiction.  We have I believe the 2nd largest rare earth deposits in the world but have been slow to develop them due to extraction challenges and environmental concerns.
New research shows there maybe very large amounts of rare earth elements in the piles of coal ash across the USA.  Research is on going in how to get enough out to make it worth it.

Why give the money to Ukraine, spend it on developing assets here at home.  Ukraine can certainly use the money, but we need independence from foreign sources if possible.

The US has adequate supplies of most "rare earths" present in the country to exploit. Right now, that isn't really necessary because Mountain Pass mine can provide enough ore to meet domestic demand. It contains most (not all) the "rare earth" elements we need. This has been true for many, many years. The main problem is that it is impossible to refine these materials in the US using any process that meets both EPA standards and is economically competitive. For may years the output of Mountain Pass was shipped overseas to be refined. Some of the resulting products (much, much physically smaller volume after refining) were shipped back to the US. Much more of it was incorporated into "finished goods" in China for export back to the US. We were (are) effectively shipping our pollution issues elsewhere.

Mining and ore refining in the US face major economic impediments. US workers typically get much higher wages for the same work than the "foreign" competition. Copper is a "poster child" for this problem. Mining and refining are both "dirty" jobs. Mining is dangerous. It is also not an "urban" activity. For example, Mountain Pass overlooks the middle of nowhere. Finding people who are skilled enough and willing to do the work isn't easy.

Ore extraction in the US has serious regulatory costs. Much of this regulation exists because mining companies would simply abandon mines that were no longer economically viable. This left big holes in the ground with piles of overburden scattered across the landscape. Water pollution by heavy metals leaching out of the tailings was a serious problem, along with many others. Initial attempts at forcing remediation failed because companies would simply declare bankruptcy, leaving a toxic mess for the government to clean up. To stop this, both Federal and State laws compel mining companies to provide remediation insurance. This is vastly expensive and is required before the mine has any chance of returning money to pay for it.

Refining is even more problematic. There are usually several different ways to approach the problem. All are "polluting", some more than others. Companies operating in the US have to "mitigate" whatever residual pollution they produce. Companies operating in places where environmental regulation is slack to non-existent can chose their process based totally on economics and ignore the resulting environmental effects. That gives them a permanent massive competitive advantage. At one time we did refine "rare earths" in the US, but everybody doing it went out of business.

There are efforts being made in the US to restore end-to-end refining capability for rare earths in the US. Essentially all of them involve some kind of government subsidy. Experience teaches us that this approach does not work long-term. One of the "advantages" of capitalism is that the market inevitably finds the lowest-cost producer. Countries that seek even limited autarky pay a price. That price often turns out to be exorbitant. An example of this type of effort is the Jones act that attempts to preserve the merchant marine and shipbuilding in the US. It has manifestly failed to do so. We are now fighting a losing battle to build warships on the bones of what is left of our shipyards. Nobody yet has demonstrated an approach that is economically feasible. The government simply cannot afford to pay what it will take.
 
Rare earths are probably in the same category. Building an industry that can support the entire domestic demand for rare earths that is subsidized to the point of making it competitive with imports is going to be VERY expensive. Getting private investment in such industry will be problematic. If congress decides to stop paying an adequate subsidy the industry will collapse. Too risky. An industry that only supports a "defense essential" capacity is even less economically attractive. On top of that the economic effect of a wartime cutoff on domestic industry probably wouldn't be viable. I don't have an "answer", but IMO it is unlikely that rare earth refining in the US has a future as long as other countries are eager to let us export our pollution.  

The last thing we need is a source of raw materials that is far away and under perpetual threat from Russia. If these sites were for certain economically exploitable it is probable they would already have been by the Ukrainians "recently" and by the Soviet Union previously. An increase in demand can make previously unattractive mining opportunities marginally viable. The "marginally" part becomes a big problem in keeping them open. Nobody wants to risk many. many millions of dollars building an operation that 1) may not "pan out" in the first place, and 2)can be rendered uneconomic by a 2% move in the price of its product.

[Maple Leaf]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025...baden.html


Very interesting read on the history of the Ukraine war from it's start to the start of the current administration in Washington D.C.  This article may be behind the paywall.

[Maple Leaf]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025...baden.html


Very interesting read on the history of the Ukraine war from it's start to the start of the current administration in Washington D.C.  This article may be behind the paywall.

[ADPinWDC]

As I read this, the US-Ukraine negotiations = No Deal.  Europe wields the upper hand.
[Euro News, NYTimes reports]

March 28: 
New draft of US minerals deal revives fears over Ukraine's EU accession
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/...-accession
By giving American companies preferential treatment in Ukraine, the proposed minerals deal runs the risk of contradicting the EU's competition and single market rules, which provide for equal and fair access.
The minerals deal that Kyiv and Washington are currently negotiating will be closely examined in Brussels to determine its compatibility with Ukraine's membership bid, the European Commission has said, as the latest version of the text revives fears it would derail the country's ambitions to join the bloc.  The accession process requires candidate nations to gradually align with EU legislation, including fundamental principles of fair competition and non-discrimination.
"The line has been conveyed such an agreement would need to be looked into from the perspective of the relations between Ukraine and the EU and, notably, in terms of the accession negotiations," Paula Pinho, the Commission's chief spokesperson, said on Friday during a press conference.

1) The bottom line is that Ukraine (Zelensky) values EU accession (distinct from NATO membership) above all else,
even if giving up territory in the East to Russia.  EU is promising more.  Even if faking it.  Geography matters. 

2) Zelensky says he does not consider PRIOR aid provided by USA as a "credit" of value. (!?)
This is a breakdown point, as I see it.  €114 billion estimate, but the amount varies. 

3) Ukraine rejects the 3-2 Board of the Fund "CONTROL" of Mineral Assets.  USA with 3 of 5 board votes = Non-starter. 

4) The EU sees the US deal as blocking EU accession by violating fair competition rules.  The EU wields the upper hand. Killing the deal.
Basically, the EU is vetoing the USA - UKR deal negotiations.  Ukraine wants EU accession more than anything else.

5) Ukraine is still pushing for Security Guarantees -- which is a non-starter for USA, not just Trump,
but US Congress will not approve troops for that ... as a "Back door Article 5".

I am not sure why the (!?) in item 2. AFAIK the aid provided to Ukraine was exactly that, aid. It wasn't announced as lend-lease or with any "strings" attached. It was the same as the aid the US provided to China in WW II, South Korea in the Korean Police Action, Vietnam during our involvement there, Afghanistan, Iraq etc. Israel continues to receive military aid from the US for which we are not compensated.
https://www.state.gov/military-assistance-to-israel/
We also have commercial sales of military equipment both directions between the US and Israel, but that is outside of our outright military assistance.
 
The US provided direct assistance to Ukraine, both civil and military, because the administration determined it was in our national interest to do so. From Ukraine's point of view they were supplying the bodies and we were supplying the weapons. It represented a unity of interests, not a transactional relationship. I can understand, if not support, the decision to make future assistance to Ukraine a transactional activity. However that does not change history and I fully understand Ukraine not accepting the contention they incurred a debt by accepting what we gave them. 

The EU will offer faux Security Guarantees, just like their 2% commitments to NATO.  They cannot field armies and are out of ammo. 
They will massage it and fake it to make UKR feel good.  Zelensky sees EU Accession as the top political victory. 
But, EU is suffering indigestion over possible "Rules of Engagement" with Russia on sending troops into Ukraine. 
"Can the EU troops shoot at anything?"  

What is the role of USA?  Now, I think any USA role would need to flow via NATO, and torquing by EU. 

But, the biggest problem remains that Ukraine can not physically mount another year of war.  
"Standing up to Putin" sounds tough, but what does it mean exactly?  
Ukraine doesn't have another 50,000 troops to throw at the Donbas.  And it would not move the needle.

I am not sure that Ukraine doesn't have/can't raise 50,000 more troops. I would be more concerned that the troops would simply melt away because they felt the situation was hopeless. As far as Russia's intention's go, we should be finding out "soon". The weather in Ukraine is good and the mud is almost all gone. If Russia doesn't mount a significant offensive, it means one of two things. It could mean they too are running out of troops and/or will. It could also mean they expect to get what they want without fighting. We shall see.

Europe doesn't have 50,000 troops for Donbas minefields either

Europe could deploy the 50,000 troops if they had the political will. They don't, so it is moot. If 300,000 troops were needed, they couldn't provide it for at least a year. Even then, it would be unclear where the necessary material could be found. The US could provide the 50,000 troops, but we about 34 years ago made the decision that we were  not going to fight in Ukraine, period. That decision has remained intact.

Totally Agree

[ADPinWDC]

As I read this, the US-Ukraine negotiations = No Deal.  Europe wields the upper hand.
[Euro News, NYTimes reports]

March 28: 
New draft of US minerals deal revives fears over Ukraine's EU accession
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/...-accession
By giving American companies preferential treatment in Ukraine, the proposed minerals deal runs the risk of contradicting the EU's competition and single market rules, which provide for equal and fair access.
The minerals deal that Kyiv and Washington are currently negotiating will be closely examined in Brussels to determine its compatibility with Ukraine's membership bid, the European Commission has said, as the latest version of the text revives fears it would derail the country's ambitions to join the bloc.  The accession process requires candidate nations to gradually align with EU legislation, including fundamental principles of fair competition and non-discrimination.
"The line has been conveyed such an agreement would need to be looked into from the perspective of the relations between Ukraine and the EU and, notably, in terms of the accession negotiations," Paula Pinho, the Commission's chief spokesperson, said on Friday during a press conference.

1) The bottom line is that Ukraine (Zelensky) values EU accession (distinct from NATO membership) above all else,
even if giving up territory in the East to Russia.  EU is promising more.  Even if faking it.  Geography matters. 

2) Zelensky says he does not consider PRIOR aid provided by USA as a "credit" of value. (!?)
This is a breakdown point, as I see it.  €114 billion estimate, but the amount varies. 

3) Ukraine rejects the 3-2 Board of the Fund "CONTROL" of Mineral Assets.  USA with 3 of 5 board votes = Non-starter. 

4) The EU sees the US deal as blocking EU accession by violating fair competition rules.  The EU wields the upper hand. Killing the deal.
Basically, the EU is vetoing the USA - UKR deal negotiations.  Ukraine wants EU accession more than anything else.

5) Ukraine is still pushing for Security Guarantees -- which is a non-starter for USA, not just Trump,
but US Congress will not approve troops for that ... as a "Back door Article 5".

I am not sure why the (!?) in item 2. AFAIK the aid provided to Ukraine was exactly that, aid. It wasn't announced as lend-lease or with any "strings" attached. It was the same as the aid the US provided to China in WW II, South Korea in the Korean Police Action, Vietnam during our involvement there, Afghanistan, Iraq etc. Israel continues to receive military aid from the US for which we are not compensated.
https://www.state.gov/military-assistance-to-israel/
We also have commercial sales of military equipment both directions between the US and Israel, but that is outside of our outright military assistance.
 
The US provided direct assistance to Ukraine, both civil and military, because the administration determined it was in our national interest to do so. From Ukraine's point of view they were supplying the bodies and we were supplying the weapons. It represented a unity of interests, not a transactional relationship. I can understand, if not support, the decision to make future assistance to Ukraine a transactional activity. However that does not change history and I fully understand Ukraine not accepting the contention they incurred a debt by accepting what we gave them. 

The EU will offer faux Security Guarantees, just like their 2% commitments to NATO.  They cannot field armies and are out of ammo. 
They will massage it and fake it to make UKR feel good.  Zelensky sees EU Accession as the top political victory. 
But, EU is suffering indigestion over possible "Rules of Engagement" with Russia on sending troops into Ukraine. 
"Can the EU troops shoot at anything?"  

What is the role of USA?  Now, I think any USA role would need to flow via NATO, and torquing by EU. 

But, the biggest problem remains that Ukraine can not physically mount another year of war.  
"Standing up to Putin" sounds tough, but what does it mean exactly?  
Ukraine doesn't have another 50,000 troops to throw at the Donbas.  And it would not move the needle.

I am not sure that Ukraine doesn't have/can't raise 50,000 more troops. I would be more concerned that the troops would simply melt away because they felt the situation was hopeless. As far as Russia's intention's go, we should be finding out "soon". The weather in Ukraine is good and the mud is almost all gone. If Russia doesn't mount a significant offensive, it means one of two things. It could mean they too are running out of troops and/or will. It could also mean they expect to get what they want without fighting. We shall see.

Europe doesn't have 50,000 troops for Donbas minefields either

Europe could deploy the 50,000 troops if they had the political will. They don't, so it is moot. If 300,000 troops were needed, they couldn't provide it for at least a year. Even then, it would be unclear where the necessary material could be found. The US could provide the 50,000 troops, but we about 34 years ago made the decision that we were  not going to fight in Ukraine, period. That decision has remained intact.

Totally Agree

[dabigv13]

 Right now, that isn't really necessary because Mountain Pass mine can provide enough ore to meet domestic demand. It contains most (not all) the "rare earth" elements we need. This has been true for many, many years. The main problem is that it is impossible to refine these materials in the US using any process that meets both EPA standards and is economically competitive. For may years the output of Mountain Pass was shipped overseas to be refined. Some of the resulting products (much, much physically smaller volume after refining) were shipped back to the US. Much more of it was incorporated into "finished goods" in China for export back to the US. We were (are) effectively shipping our pollution issues elsewhere.

Just spent a windy weekend camping in the Mojave Preserve maybe 20 miles from there. We explored several abandoned mines in nearby mountains. I was struck by the variety of things mined- within a quarter mile there was a tin mine, titanium mine, and a zinc mine. And copper mines nearby as well. The sense I got from reading about them was that they mostly closed from the economics of it, not running out of ore.

[dabigv13]

 Right now, that isn't really necessary because Mountain Pass mine can provide enough ore to meet domestic demand. It contains most (not all) the "rare earth" elements we need. This has been true for many, many years. The main problem is that it is impossible to refine these materials in the US using any process that meets both EPA standards and is economically competitive. For may years the output of Mountain Pass was shipped overseas to be refined. Some of the resulting products (much, much physically smaller volume after refining) were shipped back to the US. Much more of it was incorporated into "finished goods" in China for export back to the US. We were (are) effectively shipping our pollution issues elsewhere.

Just spent a windy weekend camping in the Mojave Preserve maybe 20 miles from there. We explored several abandoned mines in nearby mountains. I was struck by the variety of things mined- within a quarter mile there was a tin mine, titanium mine, and a zinc mine. And copper mines nearby as well. The sense I got from reading about them was that they mostly closed from the economics of it, not running out of ore.

[Goose]

 Right now, that isn't really necessary because Mountain Pass mine can provide enough ore to meet domestic demand. It contains most (not all) the "rare earth" elements we need. This has been true for many, many years. The main problem is that it is impossible to refine these materials in the US using any process that meets both EPA standards and is economically competitive. For may years the output of Mountain Pass was shipped overseas to be refined. Some of the resulting products (much, much physically smaller volume after refining) were shipped back to the US. Much more of it was incorporated into "finished goods" in China for export back to the US. We were (are) effectively shipping our pollution issues elsewhere.

Just spent a windy weekend camping in the Mojave Preserve maybe 20 miles from there. We explored several abandoned mines in nearby mountains. I was struck by the variety of things mined- within a quarter mile there was a tin mine, titanium mine, and a zinc mine. And copper mines nearby as well. The sense I got from reading about them was that they mostly closed from the economics of it, not running out of ore.

Great to have the experience I am sure. Wind is almost ubiquitous when one goes up the hill there. It is a slow rise but a significant one. The "town" of Mountain Pass is at an elevation of 4,730 ft, the highest point on I-15 between California and Nevada. I share you understanding that there is still plenty of ore in the ground there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_P...Earth_Mine is IMO worth the read. It immediately becomes clear that many of the challenges are environmental. Froth flotation is a water intensive process. Not good in the desert. The end of the flotation process produces waste water that has to be stored in "tailings ponds".  The stuff is gnarly. I am real familiar with tailings ponds from the Combined Metals Caselton plant. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Caselt...FQAw%3D%3D All that "black dirt" is very high in lead and manganese content from evaporated tailings ponds. Mountain Pass is even more challenging because its flotation tailings are radioactive. Couple all this with the economic challenges of competing with China (which doesn't care much about the environmental issues) and it is indeed a "hard sell".

It must also be noted that Mountain Pass does not contain exploitable concentrations of ALL "rare earths". Other mines are needed to supply them. Identified deposits of virtually every needed rare earth materials exist inside the US and Canada. Making money supplying them is the issue.

[Goose]

 Right now, that isn't really necessary because Mountain Pass mine can provide enough ore to meet domestic demand. It contains most (not all) the "rare earth" elements we need. This has been true for many, many years. The main problem is that it is impossible to refine these materials in the US using any process that meets both EPA standards and is economically competitive. For may years the output of Mountain Pass was shipped overseas to be refined. Some of the resulting products (much, much physically smaller volume after refining) were shipped back to the US. Much more of it was incorporated into "finished goods" in China for export back to the US. We were (are) effectively shipping our pollution issues elsewhere.

Just spent a windy weekend camping in the Mojave Preserve maybe 20 miles from there. We explored several abandoned mines in nearby mountains. I was struck by the variety of things mined- within a quarter mile there was a tin mine, titanium mine, and a zinc mine. And copper mines nearby as well. The sense I got from reading about them was that they mostly closed from the economics of it, not running out of ore.

Great to have the experience I am sure. Wind is almost ubiquitous when one goes up the hill there. It is a slow rise but a significant one. The "town" of Mountain Pass is at an elevation of 4,730 ft, the highest point on I-15 between California and Nevada. I share you understanding that there is still plenty of ore in the ground there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_P...Earth_Mine is IMO worth the read. It immediately becomes clear that many of the challenges are environmental. Froth flotation is a water intensive process. Not good in the desert. The end of the flotation process produces waste water that has to be stored in "tailings ponds".  The stuff is gnarly. I am real familiar with tailings ponds from the Combined Metals Caselton plant. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Caselt...FQAw%3D%3D All that "black dirt" is very high in lead and manganese content from evaporated tailings ponds. Mountain Pass is even more challenging because its flotation tailings are radioactive. Couple all this with the economic challenges of competing with China (which doesn't care much about the environmental issues) and it is indeed a "hard sell".

It must also be noted that Mountain Pass does not contain exploitable concentrations of ALL "rare earths". Other mines are needed to supply them. Identified deposits of virtually every needed rare earth materials exist inside the US and Canada. Making money supplying them is the issue.

[fullmetal]

Yep, and mining in Greenland doesn't seem like a walk in the park either.  The purported need to claim Greenland for natural resources seems specious at best.  The need to establish military presence to monitor Arctic waterways is a bit more believable.

[fullmetal]

Yep, and mining in Greenland doesn't seem like a walk in the park either.  The purported need to claim Greenland for natural resources seems specious at best.  The need to establish military presence to monitor Arctic waterways is a bit more believable.

[Goose]

Yep, and mining in Greenland doesn't seem like a walk in the park either.  The purported need to claim Greenland for natural resources seems specious at best.  The need to establish military presence to monitor Arctic waterways is a bit more believable.

Yes, it is true that monitoring Arctic waterways is necessary. However, in order to do that, one needs ships, some of which must be ice capable. We don't really have ships that can do that. We are attempting (with very limited success) to build a pitiful few. Even if we had such ships, Greenland could only provide refueling facilities and limited emergency repairs. Greenland already does that at its commercial ports. The weather is too bad most of the year to do more than that. It also allows US maritime surveillance aircraft to land and refuel, although the weather often make it very risky. So far, Greenland has always provided our military forces all the support they have requested. This goes back to the end of WW II. There is no reason to expect they would refuse to allow the US a larger military presence in Greenland than it now has. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pituffik_Space_Base AFAIK there are no outstanding requests for that. In any case NOBODY wants to be "home ported" in Greenland.

[Goose]

Yep, and mining in Greenland doesn't seem like a walk in the park either.  The purported need to claim Greenland for natural resources seems specious at best.  The need to establish military presence to monitor Arctic waterways is a bit more believable.

Yes, it is true that monitoring Arctic waterways is necessary. However, in order to do that, one needs ships, some of which must be ice capable. We don't really have ships that can do that. We are attempting (with very limited success) to build a pitiful few. Even if we had such ships, Greenland could only provide refueling facilities and limited emergency repairs. Greenland already does that at its commercial ports. The weather is too bad most of the year to do more than that. It also allows US maritime surveillance aircraft to land and refuel, although the weather often make it very risky. So far, Greenland has always provided our military forces all the support they have requested. This goes back to the end of WW II. There is no reason to expect they would refuse to allow the US a larger military presence in Greenland than it now has. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pituffik_Space_Base AFAIK there are no outstanding requests for that. In any case NOBODY wants to be "home ported" in Greenland.