The article discusses the potential implications of a resource deal between Ukraine and the US, proposed by Donald Trump. The deal would grant the US access to Ukrainian natural resources in exchange for investment and security guarantees. The article raises several concerns about the deal’s transparency, messaging, and long-term sustainability.
Some of the key points mentioned in the article include:
* The question remains how the US will offer protection guarantees in the long run, with some concerns that Trump may not be interested in the security of Ukraine as a whole but rather seeking to exploit a vulnerable ally.
* The deal’s messaging is unclear, and it would have been perceived differently if presented as a concession or private-public partnership (PPP).
* Ukraine is no stranger to PPPs, and joint ventures of some kind are considered a good idea, but privatizing state enterprises and selling them to foreign investors might be more effective.
* The deal’s long-term commitment requires clear and sustainable agreements that won’t be vulnerable to revisions when new governments come into Washington and Kyiv.
The article also mentions the legal implications of the deal, including the proposed governing law under New York law, which could change. Additionally, there is a question about whether the president has the power to make this type of deal, given Ukraine’s constitution stating that resources belong to the people, and constitutional changes might be required.
Overall, the article emphasizes the need for transparency, clear messaging, and sustainable agreements in any resource deal between Ukraine and the US.
