Dave Patterson: Trump’s Minerals Deal With Ukraine Is a Win-Win

President Donald Trump’s patience and persistence paid off. Following an impolitic encounter with Ukraine’s President Zelensky in the Oval Office in February, the Trump administration moved forward to bring peace to Ukraine. A major part of the plan was making provisions for prosperity for the former Soviet state, and the centerpiece was a rare earth minerals partnership with the US to create an economic foundation and security for post-war Kyiv. After two months of doubt about whether such a partnership could be achieved, the deal is finally done.

JC: The World Has Hurty Feelings

I thought it was only Christopher Luxon who needed to toughen up. Apparently most of the world needs to. That appears to be the case if looking at the reaction to the Trump/Zelensky confrontation is anything to go by. The sight of one man trying to convince another of the reality of the situation he is in was obviously too much for many of the world’s citizens.
I do understand the reasons as to why these hurty feelings exist. People, quite rightly, feel sorry for Zelensky. So do I. The man is in a terrible position. He is fighting a war he can’t win and he has lost thousands of both military and innocent Ukrainians along the way. This situation cannot be allowed to continue. The war cannot be allowed to continue. As Trump rightly told him he is not the one holding the cards.

Michael Bassett: Reforming the United Nations

When I heard Ukraine’s President Zelensky arguing for a fundamental overhaul of the United Nations, and especially of the Security Council, I recalled our greatest New Zealand Prime Minister and World War Two leader, Peter Fraser. He envisaged just the sort of issue we face today with Russia’s war on Ukraine. Old Peter, a wily, highly intelligent Scotsman, was one of the world’s few prime ministers to attend the San Francisco conference in 1945 that set up the rules for a postwar body to monitor the peace. With support from nearly all the smaller countries represented at the conference, Fraser objected strenuously to the great power veto that enabled any of the five victorious powers – the US, Britain, France, Russia and China – to block any substantive move the Security Council might want to take in the event of a breach of the UN Charter, even if all other countries favoured action. Peter Fraser pointed out that by allowing a veto, one of the five might behave as it pleased, and then act as judge and jury in its own cause. He was right. That’s exactly what has happened several times since 1945. The US has done it and Russia much more often. The veto is why today the United Nations is such a toothless tiger. It is unable to protect Ukraine, one of its member states, from the ruthless onslaught from neighboring Russia. The recent motion to condemn Russia passed the Security Council with a significant majority. Several Security Council members abstained from voting or absented themselves, but Russia exercised its veto, thereby preventing what should have resulted in international punishment, with Russia having to pay reparations for the damage it has done.