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

World News

45355 readers
4596 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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days 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.