No, Bessent went to Kiev only to find out that Zelenskyy had already signed the rights away to the UK. Then Trump teabagged Starmer and held the line against Zelenskyy.
— Tom Luongo (Head Sneetch) (@TFL1728) March 1, 2025
The whole thing is a farce, meant to bribe Trump into WWIII. Finally, the UK failed.
There's an intelligence leak from out of Ukraine saying that the reason why is Zelensky doesn't know what to do about this is because he already signed all that over to the Brits, and that was back in January 2025 when they signed the 100-year partnership agreement. Because the Brits understood that Zelensky was offering this to Trump, . . . But they decided to preempt Trump, and they drafted this 100-year partnership agreement, and KeIr Starmer went to Kiev, and he and Zelensky signed it together?
06:13. The thing about the rare earth minerals is an old story and Trump people have been paying attention to the story. About 10 days ago, four days ago, Rubio gave an interview, and he was talking about, "I was there. I talked to Zelensky about it. He said, 'Yeah, cool. We'll do this deal. It's a good deal. I want to do it. I just need to run it by my legislative bodies to make that deal."
And Rubio says two days later that he found out in the media that Zelensky was talking about how he rejected good deal and he's not going to do that, and blah, blah, blah. So the same thing that he was offering to Trump on a silver platter in September, he's now rejecting but in a very brazen way. He's embarrassing Rubio. He's embarrassing the Trump Administration. He's insulting Trump Administration, and that's very strange for a guy who is desperate for continued U.S. support. So I thought that doesn't make any sense at all. Then somebody sent me an article by a Czech publication, called AE News, which is saying that there's an intelligence leak from out of Ukraine, saying that the reason why Zelensky doesn't know what to do about this is because he already signed all that over to the Brits. And that was back in January when they signed the 100-year partnership agreement because the Brits understood that Zelensky was offering this to Trump, or maybe they put him up to it even, but they decided to preempt and they drafted this 1KeiKeiear partnership agreement and K Starmer went to Kiev and he and Zelensky signed it together on the 16th of January, 4 days before Trump's inauguration. It was . . . a stealth act of piracy by Keir Starmer to snatch these resources right under Donald Trump's nose, and I think Trump is completely aware of all this. And I think this is why he's been trolling the Brits and the Ukrainians and Zelensky by saying that "he has to hold elections," that "he's a dictator," that "he is owing so much money to Britain," that they want . . . . The very fact that he's pressing Zelensky about the resources I think he's trolling the Brits and that explains also why the Brits reacted so hysterically when Trump said that Zelensky was a dictator because if he Zelensky was not the legitimate leader of Ukraine at the time when they signed that 100-year agreement, then his signature there is worthless; the whole agreement is null and void. So they were all like, "No, no, no, he's not a dictator. He's legitimately elected president, blah, blah, blah, blah. Now they really flipped out about that and then they had the two emergency summits in Paris and he's like well we'll send troops and here's 5.6 more billion dollars and that 100 year agreement that's like committee in addition to Military Support they're committing no less then 3 billion pounds a year for as long as it's deemed didn't necessary now signing over the mineral rights that include the Brits after the cessation of hostility the Brits are meant to take over all of Ukraine's ports. All of their natural gas concessions, storage facilities, pipelines, titanium deposits . . . . Maybe these leaks are not accurate, but I read through the 100-year partnership agreement, and if you read that agreement it makes it look like this is plausible, that something like this was done. It's not a whole agreement. Normally when you send a contract with somebody, it'll have a "whole agreement" clause. It will stipulate that all of the parties', all of the contracting parties', obligations are spelled out in this agreement. There are no obligations falling outside of this. It's clause says it's referring to "other arrangements," and blah, blah as deemed necessary to fulfill this agreement.
No comments:
Post a Comment