Ukraine

BRAND NEW MERCH - https://thebestpoliticalshirts.com/ The Real Reason This Went Horribly Wrong Highlights 🇺🇸 The U.S.-Ukraine mineral partnership officially strengthens U.S. support for Ukraine. ⚔️ Mike Waltz, a known war hawk, appointed as UN ambassador signals a push for more military involvement. ❓ Deal’s structure raises concerns about its benefits for the American public. 🏗️ Ukraine is not responsible for a previous debt to the U.S., making the partnership financially different from past agreements. 🔄 Investment is tied to the military, requiring Ukraine to purchase U.S. weapons for rare earth minerals. ⏳ The agreement may prolong the conflict instead of promoting peace. 💰 The deal could reinforce U.S. economic interests in Ukraine’s natural resources amid rising tensions with China. Key Insights 🌍 Increased U.S. Involvement in Ukraine: The newly signed economic partnership indicates a deeper U.S. commitment to Ukraine, marking a shift from previous aid that came with repayment expectations. This could prolong the conflict by incentivizing Ukraine to continue fighting as they draw upon U.S. military support linked to their mineral explorations. 🏛️ Personnel Changes Influence Policy Direction: The appointment of war hawk figures like Mike Waltz and Marco Rubio could foreshadow an aggressive U.S. foreign policy stance, particularly concerning Ukraine and broader geopolitical conflicts. This change reflects a shift in strategic priorities, emphasizing military engagement over diplomatic negotiations. 💵 Redefining Aid to Ukraine: The deal’s structure transforming previous debt obligations into a joint investment model reflects a significant rethinking of U.S. financial relationships. Rather than acting as a creditor, the U.S. is now a partner, potentially paving the way for more collaborative engagements but complicating national interests amidst growing global tensions. ⚖️ Military Purchases Tied to Resources: The requirement that Ukraine buy military supplies in exchange for U.S. investment may increase the urgency for Ukraine to maintain a defensive posture. This relationship redefines traditional military aid and intertwines economic resources with military strategy, thereby shaping Ukraine’s geopolitical dynamics. 🔗 Risks of Prolonging the Conflict: The analysis posits that the deal may not spur a peaceful resolution but instead entrench ongoing hostilities. By linking military support to resource extraction interests, the U.S. may inadvertently cement the conflict as a prolonged engagement rather than a short-term foreign policy issue. 📉 China’s Role in Global Rare Earth Market: The video notes that this deal is a strategic maneuver against China, which dominates the rare earth minerals market. By aligning with Ukraine, the U.S. aims to mitigate its dependency on Chinese resources amidst broader trade tensions, hinting at a potential shift in international economic alignments. 🗞️ Critique of the Deal’s Efficacy: The speaker expresses skepticism about the overall effectiveness of the deal for American interests, arguing that it may place undue financial responsibility on the U.S. while enabling continued conflict rather than fostering peace, complicating future diplomatic negotiations with both Ukraine and Russia.

Die Wahrheit über die Ukraine, die nie erzählt wird...

Uns werden nur Lügen aufgetischt. Die Wahrheit sieht anders aus!

Jeffrey Sachs sees the Ukraine crisis as a result of NATO’s overreach. He warns, “If they took Ukraine as a member of NATO, we will end up in nuclear war.” This dangerous path could lead to catastrophic outcomes. Sachs believes the root of the conflict is not territorial. It’s about NATO pushing to Russia’s borders. “Russia throughout its history has always believed in keeping some safety from the West,” he explains. He emphasizes the threat posed by NATO’s expansion. “After the end of the Soviet Union in 1991, the US and Germany had said to Gorbachev and to Yeltsin, we won’t expand NATO one inch eastward,” Sachs recalls. “But then, like always, with the United States, they lied, they cheated, and they started the expansion.” Could this insistence on expansion be a prelude to a dire geopolitical error? Sachs thinks so. “Their ultimate red line has been consistent. It is Ukraine and Georgia.”

US-Senator Graham hatte mal wieder einen sehr ehrlichen Moment und verrät den Grund für das US-Engagement im Krieg: In der Ukraine lagern Rohstoffe im Wert von $10-$12 Billionen und die sollen Russland und China nicht bekommen. Wäre die Ukraine arm, wäre sie der USA egal!