Donald Trump must focus on what he sees as his two central challenges. First, on curbing China’s growth and maintaining American hegemony in the age of new technologies. Third, on defeating the political opposition, which is the Democratic Party, along with the segment of the British elite currently in power.
Side issues, such as the Ukraine conflict, are distracting Trump from focusing all his efforts on his two main priorities. This is a characteristic of a leader of his own country, and such a policy is planned. He outlined it before the election.
The president is not all of America. Besides him, there is also business, whose interests Trump pursues like any responsible leader of a country.
The West and the Americans will not abandon Ukraine
It will be in safe hands, including the Americans. The British, Germans have been eyeing Ukraine for economic and geopolitical purposes for at least over a hundred years, including our compatriot, the Belarusian Alfred Rosenberg, Hitler’s henchman.
At present, the proportions are not yet publicly known and, as can be seen, are currently in the process of being agreed upon. This understandably causes public controversy, even live from the Oval Office of the White House. However, some of the information on dietary doses was revealed publicly, and it allows us to understand the outlines, the (non)fulfilment of which we will evaluate in the near future.
In recent years, we have been talking about international (Ukrainian) politics in moral categories. The Baltic states have been particularly prominent in this, so there is no reason to be surprised with the current indignation that Western partners are evaluating us accordingly, inviting us to some of their discussions or not. Systemic moralization could be described as a certain kind of innovation, because in previous centuries, international politics was usually discussed in terms of the interests of so-called realpolitik.
Not the only, but one of the most publicly visible realpolitikers who publicly brought economic logic to the “narrative on Ukraine” over the past three years was US Senator Lindsey Graham – mentioning that the country has trillions worth of raw materials that should not fall into Moscow’s possession.
Agreement with Ukraine – many suitors
Trump has been talking intensely about making a deal with Ukraine for rare earths and other minerals. This talk has been at odds with the three years of talk that preceded it about shared values and morality in the Ukrainian conflict. (Rare earths are an oxymoron; one should ask geologists whether and how many rare earths Ukraine actually has of commercial value.)
The French and the British would also like to conclude a similar agreement. Moreover, the British, whose diplomatic and other special operations planning capabilities are unsurpassed, managed to conclude a partnership agreement with Ukraine “for a hundred years” a few days before Trump took office. According to it, the United Kingdom will be the preferred partner in the Ukrainian energy sector, including in the areas of renewable energy sources, critical minerals and environmentally friendly steel production.
The question inevitably arises: do the Ukrainians have other critical or rare minerals for which they could conclude a contract with the Americans? The answers will probably come in time.
The British newspaper The Daily Telegraph concluded that Trump was asking too much from Ukraine without actually offering anything in return, and that the US would profit from every deal.
Trump’s proposed treaty for Ukraine could be worse than the punitive treaties for Germany and Japan after World War II, but those two countries were losers at the time. The proposed treaty for Ukraine could be even worse than the Treaty of Versailles for Germany after World War I.
The British newspaper is undoubtedly right that such an agreement should not be signed. Of course, the British newspaper must indirectly defend its country’s agreement with Ukraine and criticize the American offer. As we have seen, the Ukrainian president was also not ready to sign the text of the agreement, which was obviously prepared for him by the American side.
Volodymyr Zelensky represented not only himself in his recent scandalous conversation with the US president, but also, to a large extent, part of Europe – primarily France and the United Kingdom. The Ukrainian head of state immediately supplemented his visit to Trump with a visit not only to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, but even to the monarch Charles III himself.
Refinancing of Ukrainian loans
Just like in the roundabout way around the agreement on Ukraine’s rare earth metals, in the problem of refinancing the country’s previous debts, it happened that the most important ones were once again these three countries – the USA, France, and the UK. Or rather, their financial business institutions.
The first is one of the most systemic banks, which has been an advisor to the Ukrainian government for many years. Its main headquarters are in London and Paris, and French President Emmanuel Macron spent part of his working life in this credit institution. It led the Ukrainian government’s negotiations with international lenders and at the same time managed the assets of the country’s former president, Petro Poroshenko.
The other two central players in Ukraine’s refinancing are the American BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, and the French Amundi, a subsidiary of the second largest French bank, Credit Agricole.
These financial institutions have a vital interest in Ukraine being able to repay its debts. The repayment period will last for decades. In a completely different situation, Germany – after its defeat in World War I – finished paying reparations in almost a full century.
Ukrainian Reconstruction Fund
Just a few months after the Russian invasion, preparations began for the Reconstruction Fund. Zelensky met with BlackRock CEO Larry Fink to discuss how Ukraine could raise funds for the country’s reconstruction. The Ukrainian government signed an agreement with BlackRock in May 2023 to provide support services to the Development Fund for Ukraine. The government confirmed that the Wall Street titan had agreed to coordinate “the efforts of all potential investors and participants in the reconstruction of our country.” Of course, other leading financiers, such as J.P. Morgan, cannot be left out of the rescue of a country as large as Ukraine.
Moreover, at the end of 2022, the Ukrainian government’s “initiative” AdvantageUkraine reported that it had received over 500 investment applications – from the USA, Great Britain, Germany, Denmark, Belgium.
Giovanni Salvetti, the head of Eastern European operations, who is a key figure in Ukraine’s refinancing and financial attraction, has admitted that he helps Western investors invest in Ukraine. Moreover, the amounts are hundreds of millions, and some of the investors he advises invest “not in papers or bonds, but in real assets.”
Although the Reconstruction Fund could only start working after the war is over, it must be admitted that Ukraine looks like a profitable investment opportunity. The division of this bear’s skin is in full swing, and we hope that it will end with a result acceptable to all parties. According to good practice – this was also the case in Libya – Western countries divide up responsibility or investment zones even before the war ends.
The destruction of Ukraine’s black soil
Early in his presidency, Zelensky risked his popularity by lifting a moratorium on land sales and pushing through legislation to create a land market. The idea of creating a land market was unpopular with Ukrainian society, but many experts believed it was a significant boost to Ukraine’s economy.
Ukrainian media have mentioned the US private equity firm NCH Capital, Saudi Arabian and French agro-conglomerates, and companies listed on the London and Warsaw stock exchanges with Ukrainian oligarchs, Canadian and other capital among the largest landowners.
This topic has been overgrown with many rumors that all of the Black Earth has been sold to the West. Even so, on November 13, Belgian MEP Barbara Bonte wrote to the European Commission asking about the true situation and its impact on the viability of EU agriculture.
A couple of years ago, well-organized resistance demonstrations were held simultaneously in Poland, Romania, other neighboring countries of Ukraine, and also in Latvia, demanding a halt to agricultural imports from Ukraine. A few days before the third anniversary of the criminal Russian invasion of Ukraine, the agricultural ministers of the eastern EU countries resumed their opposition to concessions to this country in the upcoming agricultural trade negotiations, demanding protection of the EU agricultural sector.
“We stand in solidarity with Ukraine, but we will protect farmers’ livelihoods and competitiveness!” writes Hungarian Agriculture Minister István Nagy.
Let’s (not) go to war in Ukraine
Should Europeans go and will they really go to Ukraine to fight or to keep the peace, protecting their investment zone? These are difficult questions that cannot be answered lightly. Therefore, the answer we hear at the moment is skeptical. One of the most determined is the British government, whose leader’s ability to use very considered verbal formulas is excellent. He emphasizes, “that we are ready and willing to contribute to ensuring Ukraine’s security guarantees, if necessary, by deploying our soldiers on the ground.”
But the British military has been skeptical. “Frankly, we don’t have the numbers or the equipment to deploy large forces for a long period of time,” former British Army chief Richard Dannatt told the BBC. He estimates that Britain alone would need to provide about 30,000 troops for peacekeeping. That would be about 40 percent of the British army.
At the same time, Starmer admits that peace in Ukraine can only be achieved if Europe and the United States continue to work closely together. The support of the United States is crucial, and “US security guarantees are essential for lasting peace,” the British Prime Minister emphasized. The British media have described the fact that Starmer is not yet ready to spend more than 2.5% of the UK’s gross domestic product on its own defense. It is also unclear when the Labour government in London will even reach this goal.
Who votes with their wallet?
In recent months, an interesting indication has been seen – investors’ decisions, which for them are votes with their own wallets. We are talking about the indicators of a couple of the most important military companies on the American stock exchange. For six months now, the shares of two companies whose products are intensively used in Ukraine – namely, General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin – have been falling.
Perhaps among other reasons, investors feel that the war in Ukraine is indeed coming to an end. In contrast, shares of another military market leader, Raytheon, are rising. This company produces high-tech equipment that is heavily used by Israel.
Will Trump really win the fight for peace, and how long will Europe, led by the British, remain in open battle against the US president? We can only continue to watch.
Zodiac sign interpreters are betting on Trump.
Article on the LA.lv portal: Armands Gūtmanis: Trump’s planned leadership and our president | LA.LV