this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2025
602 points (99.7% liked)

World News

45282 readers
5617 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

President Volodymyr Zelensky warned on March 28 that Ukraine will reject a proposed U.S. minerals deal if it endangers the country’s EU accession.

A new draft, reportedly granting the U.S. extensive control over Ukrainian natural resources, raised concerns over economic sovereignty.

Zelensky said lawyers will review the agreement, emphasizing it must not conflict with Ukraine’s constitutional EU alignment.

The initial deal would create a joint fund reinvesting extraction proceeds into Ukraine. The White House views it as a way to recoup aid, but Kyiv remains cautious after a prior dispute with Trump.

top 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] anindefinitearticle 94 points 1 day ago (5 children)
[–] [email protected] 50 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But the minerals will make the rich richer, so of course, the minerals MUST be mined! It's capitalism 101

[–] rebelsimile 22 points 1 day ago

We require more minerals for the expansion of the creep!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago

It’s like they want humanity to starve.

Quite a few members of the Trump Administration, including his Secretary of Health and Human Services, are avowed eugenicists.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago

Iirc the dirty secret of rare earth metals is that every country has them in at least some capacity even if there's variability in how easy to access those deposits are. The dirty part is that the countries that produce them less so have a particular abundance and more so have a lack of environmental regulations.

[–] Kecessa 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Around here they build shopping malls over the most fertile land we have access to instead of using it to grow food for the millions of people living right next to it...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ontario. Open for businesses.

[–] Kecessa 1 points 1 day ago

Quebec, south shore of the St Lawrence, across the bridge from Montreal!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (4 children)

I was with you until you mixed nuclear into the post. Chernobyl was a series of human errors and bad decisions. We need nuclear to fix our energy issues and slapping the name onto a separate issue is dishonest and makes me doubt your intentions.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They never claimed that nuclear is bad, they claimed that the Chernobyl disaster has already negatively impacted the land enough, mining would only make it worse

[–] anindefinitearticle 7 points 1 day ago
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago

Who is "we"?

e.g. Germany already produces 60% of its power reneweable. The plan is 100% by 2030-2035. And the prices for reneweables are already far below the ones for nuclear.

So why throw 10 billion euro into building a nuclear power plant that delivers 1 Gigawatt when you build reneweables for 1 billion that delivers 10 Gigawatt?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Nope, we don't. This talking point is about a decade out of date. The solutions are all sitting right there without building any new nuclear.

https://www.amazon.com/No-Miracles-Needed-Technology-Climate/dp/1009249541

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The argument behind this book revolves around cheap, durable, and at-cost managed utilities with the capacity to shepherd renewable energy in a manner that replicates the need for base load.

The problem with this as a solution comes down to an unforgiving contradiction - this solution does not create high rates of profit. Without high-profit public works, you don't get buy-in from the financial sector. And without financial sector buy-in, you don't get business administrators willing to engage the private sector in construction, development, and maintenance of these systems.

The book doesn't mint enough new billionaires, so it won't be accepted as a solution in a western free market system. It is, incidentally, why nuclear energy is also unpopular in the US. Compared to gas, oil, and coal, the margins on nuclear electricity are too damned low. Green energy only works because it is so intermittent and temporal, allowing energy brokers to trade on the ups and downs of supply as they fall out of sync with demand.

If you make the system efficient, you lose all the opportunities for arbitrage that incentivize private actors to invest and extract wealth.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why the fuck would you even consider signing anything to that fat orange shit? Every single one of his administration just made a mockery of you last month

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why the fuck would you even consider signing anything to that fat orange shit?

Ask Chuck Schumer. He insists he's got his reasons.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Because, unlike Trump, he wants his constituents to stop dying.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

And unlike Trump, isn't a waste of oxygen on this planet.

But I'd rather pick total annihilation than bowing to a dictator. So hope the EU deal isn't interrupted by the orange turds and their stink.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 day ago

A deal with the USA means nothing, but that is as true today as it was in 2014 and 2022.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 day ago

We’ve reached the point where signing a deal with the US threatens EU membership 😞

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago

He shouldn’t sign it at all because it’s fucking stupid.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago

Capitalists crave that mineral