CPAC Highlights Part II

A few observations and a word of caution.

View from the Gaylord hotel at National Harbor in Maryland

I apologize for the delay in writing this. Traveling across the country was both exhausting and time-consuming.

Last Saturday marked my second and final day at CPAC. I woke up early once again to attend the women’s breakfast meeting at 7:30 a.m., which was sponsored by Moms for America. A singer and actress I was not familiar with, Ms. Mary Millben, delivered a stunning rendition of the national anthem. If I had felt sleepy before, I was completely awake by that point. You can check it out for yourself here.

The day was filled with speeches, and I won’t bore you with a summary of all the sessions. Instead, I’d like to share three observations from my first time attending CPAC.

Location, Location, and Location

In real estate, location is everything. After spending two days at CPAC, I began to reflect on the significance of the conference's location. CPAC took place at the National Harbor, just a few miles outside of Washington D.C., which is the power center of America. It was therefore not surprising that the conference featured nearly all current cabinet members from the administration and several senior White House officials as speakers. When those involved in critical decision-making share their insights, attentive observers can gain timely information.

For instance, I highlighted in my last newsletter that national security advisor Michael Waltz spoke at CPAC on Friday. While he cautioned against revealing specifics about ongoing negotiations concerning the U.S.-Ukraine mineral deal, he provided two eye-opening insights. Waltz disclosed that it was actually the Ukrainian government that first suggested granting the U.S. access to its minerals as part of economic cooperation and a security guarantee. Waltz also conveyed his strong belief that a mineral deal between the U.S. and Ukraine was on the verge of being signed. These unique revelations, heard exclusively at CPAC, shed new light on the situation.

Initially, I found Waltz's claim about Ukraine leading the charge for the mineral deal to be questionable, interpreting it as a defense of Trump, especially since I had not encountered this narrative in the mainstream media. I was also skeptical about his assertive prediction of a swift agreement; last week, most media reports centered around a "war of words" between Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky. This public feud, rife with disagreements and accusations, culminated in Zelensky's bold declaration that he would not endorse a mineral deal. This was the context that shaped my understanding up until Friday.

Yet, only a day after Waltz's compelling talk at CPAC, the Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. and Ukraine are on the brink of finalizing a deal that would grant valuable mineral rights to the U.S. The WSJ also revealed that Zelensky's administration had previously put forth the idea of offering preferential access to Ukraine's mineral resources as a strategic move to incentivize Trump to continue military support for Kyiv, providing a tangible economic benefit to the U.S. The WSJ report aligns with what Waltz mentioned at CPAC.

The mineral deal is particularly astute for Ukraine, given that its abundant mineral resources are mostly situated in territories currently occupied by Russian forces. By securing a mineral rights agreement, the Ukrainian government hopes to ensure American intervention to keep Russian troops at bay, thereby prioritizing U.S. financial interests in the region.

It’s important to recognize that both Ukraine and the U.S. are fiercely negotiating, each striving for the best deal for their nations. The ongoing "war of words" might just be part of a strategic negotiation game. This week, Ukraine’s Deputy Prime Minister, Olha Stefanishyna, confirmed that her country is on the verge of finalizing a new minerals-for-security agreement with Washington—an agreement poised to reshape the security landscape in the region.

All of this taught me a valuable lesson: I should not dismiss what I heard at CPAC simply because mainstream media has not reported it. The stage here could be where breaking news is made.