Alona Lebedieva: The Memorandum with the United States Must Be Transformed into a Legally Flawless Agreement
KYIV, UKRAINE, April 30, 2025 / EINPresswire.com / -- Ukraine and the United States of America have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to conclude an Agreement on Economic Partnership.
The document confirms the parties' readiness to cooperate on the establishment of an Investment Fund for Ukraine's reconstruction and outlines the general principles of mutually beneficial partnership.
The Memorandum provides that the future Agreement will help attract significant investments, modernize critical infrastructure, and develop strategic sectors. It also states that the United States respects Ukraine's European integration course and the country's commitments to international financial institutions.
'A memorandum is a document that reflects the positions of the parties and confirms the intention to sign an Agreement. We will be able to discuss its content only after the full text is published. However, it is already worth welcoming the fact that the United States has officially declared its readiness to invest alongside the Ukrainian people and confirmed its respect for our course toward EU membership,' said Alona Lebedieva, owner of the Ukrainian diversified industrial and investment group of companies 'Aurum Group.'
She emphasized the importance of adhering to Ukrainian law during the finalization of the Agreement.
'According to the Constitution, land, subsoil, water, and other natural resources are the property of the Ukrainian people. State authorities exercise the rights of the owner on behalf of the people. Therefore, the correct and safest path is to approve the Agreement by a Presidential decree and a decision of the Verkhovna Rada. This will also protect the United States as a partner from the risk of legal disputes or annulment of agreements.'
According to her, repayment would only be possible in the event of a proven violation of the terms of the aid provision by the Ukrainian side, which has not been officially recorded to date.
One of the elements of the future Agreement, according to open sources, could be the creation of a joint fund to invest in Ukraine's reconstruction and the development of critical mineral extraction.
'The main idea here is to attract long-term and affordable American investments. From an economic perspective, this is logical: a joint fund could bring billions of dollars annually into Ukraine and stimulate the development of the extractive sector,' noted Lebedieva.
She stressed the importance of focusing on genuinely priority areas for the effective implementation of the initiative.
'The optimal approach is to form a short, realistic list of strategically important projects to concentrate resources on the most effective areas and achieve tangible results quickly. If everything is carried out within the framework of Ukrainian legislation, the state and communities will receive royalties, employee income taxes, and other revenues,' she added.
In the context of further work on the Agreement, Lebedieva emphasized the need for legal clarity and transparency.
'The Agreement must become a document in which each provision meets the interests of Ukrainian society, creates no legal risks, guarantees respect for Ukraine's sovereignty, and promotes its economic development,' Lebedieva concluded.
Alona Lebedieva
Aurum Group
email us here
Legal Disclaimer:
EIN Presswire provides this news content 'as is' without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Epoch Times
28 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
EU Envoy Flags Concern With Beijing-Moscow Axis, Pushes Defence Pact with Australia
China's military build-up is not just a regional concern, the EU's top envoy in Australia has cautioned, citing Europe's deepening worries about Beijing's cooperation with Moscow. Speaking at the National Press Club in Canberra on June 11, European Union Ambassador Gabriele Visentin said the continent was worried the alignment between China and Russia would threaten global stability.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Donald Trump and Josh Hawley Are Wrong To Call for Jailing People Who Burn the American Flag
One of the more relevant maxims today, particularly in the age of social media, is the fact that saying the same thing over and over again does not make it a reality. There are many people—across the political spectrum—who should internalize this. President Donald Trump is one of them. While speaking at Fort Bragg on Tuesday, he re-upped an idea he has floated many times: "People that burn the American flag should go to jail for one year," he told a crowd of U.S. service members in a now-viral clip. "And we'll see if we can get that done." They cannot, in fact, get that done. Trump is, of course, entitled to oppose flag burning on moral grounds. Many understandably find the act tasteless and offensive, as is their right. His administration will not be able, however, to address that using the blunt force of the law, as the highest law of the land already protects it as a form of free expression. This isn't new. "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment," wrote U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan in 1989, "it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." That came from his opinion in Texas v. Johnson, in which the Court said it was unconstitutional when Texas used a law criminalizing flag desecration to prosecute Gregory Lee Johnson, who had burned an American flag to protest President Ronald Reagan during the Republican National Convention. Johnson was sentenced to one year in jail. Sound familiar? Some lawmakers weren't happy with the Court's decision, so Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989. The law prescribed up to one year of incarceration for anyone who "knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon" any American flag. In trying to dance around the Court's recent ruling, legislators got creative and shifted the focus of the law to preserving its literal physical integrity, which they hoped would be seen as content neutral. They were unsuccessful. "Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering," wrote Brennan the next year in United States v. Eichman. The Court ruled the law unconstitutional. But what about recent high-profile prosecutions against people who burned the pride flag? There is a reason those cases were allowed to proceed under the Constitution: They concerned defendants who burned flags they stole. Law enforcement should not pursue hate crime enhancements for such offenses—or for any offenses, as prosecutors should be in the business of punishing bad acts, not bad thoughts. But there is a difference under the law between burning a flag you own, and stealing someone's property so you can then destroy it. You have a right to burn any type of flag you want, so long as it belongs to you, whether that be a pride flag, a pirate flag, a Pizza Hut flag, a "NO STEP ON SNEK" flag, an unofficial Antarctica flag (which appropriately looks a bit like a mistake), and an American flag. The list goes on. The debate here is increasingly fraught in a political climate that has a large appetite for red meat. "I'm with Trump on this one," said Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.), an attorney, on X. "Anyone who burns our flag committing a crime should go to jail—double the sentence. Evidently all of Fort Bragg agrees." His phrasing is clever. Someone who "burns our flag committing a crime" will already be subject to arrest, prosecution, and jail for the crime they committed, because crimes are already illegal. That includes, for example, stealing and destroying an American flag—or any property—that doesn't belong to you. And, as Hawley certainly knows, if he is "with Trump on this one," then he is on board with prosecuting the expressive act itself, as the president has made clear over and over again. The latter idea is what some U.S. troops were heard cheering during Trump's speech. Their service in defense of freedom is admirable. But it's worth noting that they take oaths to the Constitution, not to the political moment. As Brennan reminded us decades ago, that document also protects the freedoms of people whose expression you may completely despise; any effort to uphold it has to include your ideological opposites, or it doesn't mean a lot. Perhaps ironically, nothing is more emblematic of that ideal than the American flag itself—and your right to do with it what you wish. The post Why Donald Trump and Josh Hawley Are Wrong To Call for Jailing People Who Burn the American Flag appeared first on
CNBC
31 minutes ago
- CNBC
European defense stocks have soared this year — could a rare earths bottleneck put a lid on the rally?
European defense companies have seen a monumental rise in value this year, as a regional push to ramp up military spending sparks a bull run on the sector. Strategists, analysts and industry leaders spoke to CNBC about the outlook for the industry, which has The industry has seen several stocks more than double in value in just six months but it now faces a shortage of rare earth minerals. Experts were divided on whether the sector has reached its peak as some analysts told CNBC they see more upside ahead, while others said the supply bottleneck could frustrate the sector's progress. Regional defense stocks were in positive territory on Wednesday, with the Stoxx Europe Aerospace and Defense index around 0.6% higher after climbing down from larger gains seen in early trade. Over the course of 2025, the index has gained around 45%. Momentum 'remains firmly in place' Loredana Muharremi, equity analyst at Morningstar, told CNBC on Wednesday that regardless of supply chain constraints, there was still upside ahead for the European defense sector. "While rare earth bottlenecks are a material supply chain risk, we do not believe they are sufficient on their own to trigger a correction in European defense stocks," she said in an email. "Most of the sector's rerating has been driven by structural demand growth tied to multi-year procurement cycles, rising NATO budgets, and renewed national rearmament efforts — momentum that remains firmly in place." However, Loredana noted that rare earths and other critical raw materials are becoming a growing strategic vulnerability. This is of particular concern for high-performance systems such as radar, missiles, precision-guided munitions, and propulsion technologies. Europe sourced almost 90% of its yttrium in 2023 — a rare earth element used in the manufacturing of fighter jets, land vehicles and targeting systems — from China, according to Morningstar. "A prolonged period of import restrictions could begin to affect production schedules," Muharremi said, adding that prospects of diplomatic engagement between China and EU mitigate the likelihood of any severe supply shocks. Wednesday's positive momentum among Europe's defense stocks marks a reversal from a three-day sell-off, which culminated in the index shedding 3% as investors awaited news from high stakes U.S.-China trade talks in London. At the center of the talks was Chinese export controls over rare earth minerals, which are critical in the manufacturing of defense technologies . Following a second day of negotiations, it was announced that Washington and Beijing's representatives had reached an agreement, which would be put before their respective presidents for approval. U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told reporters Chinese restrictions on rare earths were "fundamental" to the agreement. Speaking to CNBC's Charlotte Reed on Wednesday, Thales CEO Patrice Caine said the situation was gradually improving, while warning that supply tensions could affect areas like mechanical parts and electronic boards. However, he downplayed the direct impact an ongoing bottleneck would have on Thales' operations. "It's much lower down in our supply chain, so it's not directly visible to us," Caine explained. "Of course, if we lack these key resources at one stage it will impact us, but for the moment it's much too low in the supply chain to be visible and have any impact on what we do at the other end." French defense giant Thales, which supplies companies and governments with defense technology, has seen its shares jump around 80% so far this year. Back in March, Caine told CNBC planned defense spend hikes in Europe ought to remain in the region and benefit companies native to the bloc. 'Hard to see' another big boost for sector Maximilian Uleer, Deutsche Bank's head of European equity and cross asset strategy, is cautious on the sector, regardless of what happens to the supply of rare earth minerals. "European [defense] stocks increasingly reflect higher spending plans," he said in a Friday note, pointing out that the average price to earnings ratio in the sector had moved much higher since the beginning of the year. Uleer added that markets were expecting military alliance NATO to propose its members commit to spending 5% of their GDP on defense — a notion touted by U.S. President Donald Trump that has had a divided response from European leaders — at its upcoming summit. "The biggest spender, Germany, has already announced a plan to invest accordingly … This could support further inflows [to the sector] short term," he said. "But apart from that, it is hard to see how the NATO summit could beat expectations and what the next driver for the Defence sector will be. We see limited upside for the sector in H2." Aymeric Gastaldi, international equities portfolio manager at Edmond de Rothschild Asset Management, disagreed, arguing that the long-term outlook has "fundamentally changed" for the sector. "The combination of growth and visibility commands a structurally higher multiple for the whole sector," he told CNBC in an email on Wednesday. Edmond de Rothschild Asset Management expects sales of European defense to grow by more than 150% over the next seven years. "The sector will benefit from the rise of defense spending from < 2% GDP to +3%, the rise of equipment spending within the overall mix from 35% currently to 40%-50%, and the willingness of European countries to source more of their spending locally," Gastaldi explained. "Now, Germany is contemplating boosting its military spending towards 5% of GDP by 2032. This is a sea change." Having pared some of the gains seen in the wake of a European commitment to ramp up defense spending , the regional Aerospace and Defense index is now up by around 45% since the beginning of the year. Some of the regional defense giants, however, have seen much steeper year-to-date rallies. Tank parts maker Renk has soared around 270% so far this year, while arms manufacturer Rheinmetall has surged 172% and defense tech giant Hensoldt is up by 163%. German players have been major beneficiaries of the bullish sentiment toward the sector, thanks to the country's historic debt reform in March that paved the way for greater spending on national security. Short term, Edmond de Rothschild's Gastaldi conceded that there could be some tactical sell-off as investors questioned whether the sector had peaked. "However, in the long-term we still see value in the space, and in a context of low economic growth, companies that are able to post high and robust earnings growth will trade on [a] much higher multiple than the market," he said. Mark Boggett, CEO of Seraphim Space, which manages a space tech investment fund, also told CNBC he did not believe regional defense stocks had reached their peak. "Global defence priorities are undergoing a fundamental, structural transformation," he argued. "Governments worldwide are not only maintaining but also accelerating investments in sovereign space capabilities, recognizing the critical strategic importance of space-based infrastructure for national security." He pointed to Trump's recently announced $1 trillion defense budget that would include a so-called "Golden Dome" missile defense system , as well as the European Union's plans to mobilize up to 800 billion euros ($917.5 billion) for defense spending.
