Ground Changer: US Supports Russia at the UN! By Chris Knight (Florida)

In a significant diplomatic shift, the United States recently demonstrated a more balanced and pragmatic approach toward Russia at the United Nations. This move, aimed at fostering peace and stability, has been met with resistance from certain European nations that appear intent on pushing for further confrontation rather than seeking a diplomatic resolution. In short, the hawks in Germany and the UK want war with Russia, one that they will lose.

On February 24, 2025, the United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution introduced by the United States, marking a crucial moment in the efforts to end the Ukraine conflict. Notably, Russia supported the resolution, demonstrating its willingness to engage in a diplomatic process rather than prolong hostilities. The resolution called for an end to the war but, in a break from previous Western-led measures, avoided inflammatory rhetoric or direct condemnation of Russia. This shift from Washington indicates a growing recognition that isolating Moscow has been counterproductive and that constructive dialogue is the key to de-escalation.

Despite this promising development, the resolution faced opposition in the UN General Assembly, where European states pushed for amendments designed to frame Russia as the sole aggressor. These efforts reflect an unwillingness by certain factions in the West to acknowledge Ukraine's role in escalating tensions or to consider legitimate Russian security concerns.

While Washington takes a more pragmatic approach, some European nations are pursuing a dangerous path of escalation. Britain has announced its most significant military buildup since the Cold War, while Germany is considering drastic fiscal changes to increase defense spending. Denmark, too, has vowed to expand its military capabilities. These actions suggest that rather than supporting peace, key European powers are preparing for a prolonged confrontation, potentially at the expense of their own economies and security.

Europe's aggressive stance is further evident in its diplomatic manoeuvring. In contrast to the balanced approach taken by the U.S., European leaders pushed for a General Assembly resolution explicitly condemning Russia. This move was part of a broader strategy to isolate Moscow rather than seek common ground. The fact that the General Assembly resolution passed with weaker support than previous anti-Russia measures suggests that many nations outside of the West are increasingly sceptical of Europe's approach.

The U.S.'s new posture at the UN signals an opportunity for a genuine peace process—one that does not rely on Western-imposed ultimatums but instead fosters dialogue and compromise. Russia's support for the Security Council resolution underscores its interest in de-escalation, in contrast to the reckless policies of European hawks who seem determined to provoke further instability, and ultimately World War III.

However, there are troubling signs that NATO is actively working to undermine peace efforts. Western military provocations, including the scrambling of NATO warplanes in response to Russian aircraft over Ukraine, as well as the deployment of U.S. strategic bombers near Russian borders, suggest that the West is still flirting with escalation. These actions, rather than Russia's defensive measures, are the true drivers of tension in the region.

The U.S. decision to take a more balanced stance at the UN is a welcome development that could pave the way for lasting peace. However, Washington's efforts risk being sabotaged by European leaders who continue to push for confrontation rather than reconciliation. Russia's constructive engagement at the UN Security Council should be seen as a step toward a diplomatic solution, yet it remains to be seen whether Western governments—particularly in Europe—are truly interested in peace or merely seeking to prolong the conflict for their own strategic gains.

Another side to this, as Michael Snyder argues is that US mineral deals with the Ukraine could put the US back into conflict with Russia:

https://michaeltsnyder.substack.com/p/this-could-be-the-hook-in-the-jaw

"Ukraine has vast deposits of "rare earth elements" that are potentially worth enormous amounts of money. Over half of those deposits are in areas of eastern Ukraine which have either already been captured by the Russians or will soon be captured by the Russians if the war continues. On Monday, the Ukrainians announced that a deal in which the United States and Ukraine would share the economic rights to those deposits is in the "final stages of negotiations". But if Russian forces keep marching forward, the economic value of that deal to the United States will rapidly diminish. In order to extract the wealth out of Ukraine that he is anticipating, President Trump will need to get the Russians to sign a peace agreement or he will need to stop them by force. Unfortunately, a peace agreement is not going to happen any time soon because both sides are making extremely unrealistic demands. The Ukrainians and our European allies are demanding that the Russians give back all the territory that they have captured, and they are insisting that Ukraine must be allowed to join NATO. Meanwhile, the Russians are demanding that "NATO and American forces are withdrawn from eastern Europe". Both sides are not serious about peace, and with each passing day the Russians are capturing more extremely valuable territory in eastern Ukraine. So if President Trump intends for the deal that he is making with Ukraine to be profitable, he will be forced to intervene. In other words, it appears that this could be the hook in the jaw that pulls the U.S. directly into the war in Ukraine.

Bottom of Form

Decisions that are being made right now will change the course of history.

The reason why Trump is so eager to sign a deal with Ukraine is because it possesses "as much as five percent of the world's known critical mineral reserves"…

Ukraine is home to a bountiful supply of naturally occurring rare earth minerals and other minerals considered critical for modern industries. Among the most coveted are lithium, used to make batteries for mobile phones and laptops, and the critical nuclear energy product uranium. Ukraine is believed to be home to as much as five percent of the world's known critical mineral reserves.

Trump sees an opportunity for the U.S. to get much of the money that it has invested in the war back.

But when "President Z" was first shown the details of the deal that Trump wanted, he was not happy at all…

Zelensky has described the deal as "selling his country" to Washington as it does not offer Ukraine any security against future Russian aggression and puts a financial burden on future generations of Ukrainians.

An insider told the Financial Times that Zelensky "was very angry" and that his shouting could reportedly be heard from outside the room.

Unfortunately for Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, he was on the receiving end of that particular exchange.

Subsequently, Bessent was "visibly shaken" as he spoke to the press…

'He was very angry,' a person present told the Financial Times, explaining how the gilded doors of Zelensky's presidential office did nothing to stop those outside from hearing every word of the verbal beatdown.

Bessent was visibly shaken, his voice trembling as he delivered a stumbling statement to reporters moments after enduring the wrath of the Ukrainian President.

This is why Trump said such shocking things about "President Z" last week.

Trump was extremely upset about what had happened.

In fact, there are reports that the Trump administration actually threatened to cut off all deliveries of weapons and ammunition to Ukraine.

That must have worked, because now the Ukrainians are telling us that a deal is in "the final stages of negotiations"…

On Monday, Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice Olga Stefanishyna commented on the U.S.-Ukraine deal on X: "Ukrainian and U.S. teams are in the final stages of negotiations regarding the minerals agreement. The negotiations have been very constructive, with nearly all key details finalized.

"We are committed to completing this swiftly to proceed with its signature. We hope both US and UA leaders might sign and endorse it in Washington the soonest to showcase our commitment for decades to come."

Most of the discussion in the media is about what this agreement will mean for Ukraine, but the focus should really be on what it will mean for the United States.

Earlier this month, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham told a conference in Munich exactly what it will mean…

"If we sign this minerals agreement, Putin is screwed, 'cause Trump will defend the deal."

He is right.

Trump is not just going to sit there and watch Russia gobble up the minerals.

During an interview with Good Morning Britain, Boris Johnson said something very similar…

Mr Johnson told ITV's Good Morning Britain: 'I believe that we're very close to getting this minerals agreement signed between the United States and Ukraine, and that commits the US not only to future financing of Ukraine, but also to a free, sovereign and secure Ukraine.

'I think that it's positive for Ukraine – and don't forget, the fundamental loser in all that is going to be Putin, because what Putin wants is Ukraine to be a vassal state of Russia.'

The deal with Ukraine that is being negotiated right now won't get us closer to peace.

Instead, it will get us closer to all-out war.

We must pull back from the brink, because the consequences of an all-out war with Russia would be unthinkable.

On Monday, the Daily Mail published a deep dive into what a nuclear war with Russia might look like…

Hurtling towards us at almost 2,000 mph, five times faster than a jumbo jet, Britain and the US are about to be reduced to radioactive rubble by hundreds of Vladimir Putin's nuclear warheads.

Our defences stand next to no chance of intercepting all the missiles, and all the vast majority of the population can do is say goodbye to their loved ones… except the lucky few elites who are being whisked to government bunkers.

The above might sound alarmist despite the near-constant rhetoric about WW3 emanating from Russian propagandists, but experts and politicians alike warn that's the terrifying reality.

What would you do if Russian nukes were headed our way?

How would you survive if you were not instantly incinerated?

Of course you probably wouldn't even know that the nukes were about to hit, because a Russian sneak attack would almost certainly happen in the middle of the night. I discussed such a sneak attack in my book entitled "Chaos"…

Personally, I was greatly alarmed when U.S. Army General Chris Cavoli told Congress that Russian submarine patrols "into the Atlantic and throughout the Atlantic are at a high level most of the time, at a higher level than we've seen in years".

Some of those submarines are carrying nuclear missiles.

One of these days, the Russians could use those subs to launch a surprise first strike on the United States, and if that happens it will be the end of our nation as we know it today.

Most Americans simply do not understand the danger that we are facing.

Russian Borei-class submarines were designed to be incredibly quiet. These "black hole submarines" are "near-impossible to track underwater"…

Borei-class submarines, built in the mid-1990s, are the first Russian vessels equipped with a pump jet propulsion system. This makes it five times quieter than the aging Typhoon, Kalmar and Delfin-class subs they replaced, giving them 'acoustic discretion' and making them near-impossible to track underwater – a game-changing advantage for launching a sneak attack on the West.

Russian subs could be positioned along both coasts right now and we wouldn't even know it.

When the Russians finally pull the trigger on a sneak attack, it will essentially be the equivalent of "firing at point-blank range"…

Several other Russian nuclear submarines are likely to have been positioned down the US east and west coasts, within range of major Navy and Airforce bases and cities. A sneak attack using SLBMs (Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles) is the equivalent firing at point-blank range.

Each Borei-class submarine can carry up to 16 missiles.

And each missile has up to 10 independently-targetable warheads.

That means that just one sub could potentially take out 160 targets inside the United States almost instantly.

We do not want to go down that road.

So we should be trying to make peace while it is still possible to do so."