> 1. It provides a way for Ukraine to become a client of US defense instead of a an aid recipient. That is, it allows Ukraine to pay for the weapons it receives.

The text I saw was for the formation of a jointly (US/UA) owned entity which would decide how to reinvest 50% of the profits from UA State owned minerals/related infrastructure.

Unless "reinvest" means "give to US", I don't see this point happening.

> 2. It puts Americans on the ground in Ukraine in a non-military capacity. This introduces a new diplomatic dimension, as attacking or occupying land with significant American presence is not desirable.

In what way? we're not talking about any US State investment, and any US private investment would be crazy, given the war and possibility of future war. No one would invest there.

> 3. It provides money for an investment fund for rebuilding Ukraine.

It's money that exists anyway, only now it's in a fund jointly controlled by US/UA rather than being controlled only by UA.

> reinvest 50% of the profits from UA State owned minerals/related infrastructure.

Small correction: 50% of Ukraine's government revenue from natural resource extraction (minus some expenses).

> Unless "reinvest" means "give to US", I don't see this point happening.

You're right. There may be some options when the fund is actually formed, but the current deal almost exclusively benefits Ukraine (financially).

> In what way? we're not talking about any US State investment

It's up to the US how much they want to invest. If they put a lot of money into the fund, they get a lot of control over how Ukraine starts rebuilding. But due to how the fund is financed, the US will be bought out in the long run and the fund will turn into a Ukrainian sovereign one.

> It's money that exists anyway, only now it's in a fund jointly controlled by US/UA rather than being controlled only by UA.

The idea probably being to allow US oversight. Ukraine is incredibly corrupt and its government is fighting a loosing battle against this.

If a corrupt construction contracter pockets 80% of the money given to him and Ukraine tries to prosecute him, he'll just move to Portugal and nothing is ever going to happen to him.

On the other hand, if the US files charges, that contractor is going to have a really bad time.

Combined with the much superior talent pool in finance and international business available in the US, a lot more money should find its way to its intended purposes.

> Ukraine is incredibly corrupt and its government is fighting a loosing battle against this.

I hear this of this. I lived there for a year, fairly recently, in Kyiv. I didn't particularly see it, hear of it, or encounter it. I remember one or two stories of people being convicted of taking bribes, that's it. I didn't see it around me, or hear it from locals.

I may be completely wrong, but I think this isn't any more of an issue than any other post-Soviet country, and with the war on, UA doing an awful lot now to sort it out, because it relates to survival.

US gets to decide how at least half the fund gets spent, so it's US businesses who get the investment and eventually reap the profits. Ukraine obviously doesn't have the cash to give back and it will never have any without reconstruction. This is one way US gets anything at all back at a pace it has any control over.

But you are correct that without security guarantees there will be no development, no reconstruction, no investments. The deal just does nothing.

> US gets to decide how at least half the fund gets spent

I may be wrong, but I understand it was "joint control", not "50% in USA".

why does the reason the Americans put boots on the ground as a tripwire change the logic on escalating vs backing down?

You can no longer trust the Washington Post as a reliable source of opinions, like those that you're trying to shill as facts.