The interests behind the session that exploded in the White House

In the ongoing series of Donald Trump’s intentions, we climbed a particularly high -level summit this week: the connection between his foreign policy and the potential of economic exploitation.

On Tuesday, Trump confirmed that he would sign on Friday in the White House on an agreement with President Zlansky for American participation in massive exploitation of natural treasures in Ukraine. As good for his heart, Trump talked about a “$ trillion” profit, which is about to grow to the United States. In his eyes, it is appropriate for her help to Ukraine in the three years of war.

● Dear and popular: Where else can you buy a gold visa and how much will it cost you?
● World newspaper headlines | In one hand operates against Israel, the other hand sends € 100 million in

The adherence of the US president in the “bottom line” is one of the most famous. He is not interested in abstract ideas. They impose boredom. He wants to know what economic and financial gain will grow from a political move; and he imposes a diplomatic in any political move, which has not yielded profits.

He has always been a spicy critic of his predecessors. In 2011, he called on the United States to take over Iraq’s oil fields. “It will not be theft,” he was delicious. We return and take the $ 1.5 trillion. ”

Five years later, in September 2016, on the eve of its eternity in the election, the amount of self -compensation increased to $ 3 trillion. “We didn’t get anything in return. Once it was customary for a winner, “he said, and offered immediate takeover of Iraq’s oil fields, to prevent their fall by ISIS. As a president, he did not try to take his plan to work, but the form of thought did not Moses from him.

A 180 -degree turnaround in attitude

After Trump’s victory in the election. For almost three years, he used to plant the importance of support in Ukraine from the side of the international law and protect the rights of a small and weak country from the aggression of a great power. But he and his advisers realized that the classic logic of the Cold War would not speak to Trump’s heart.

Zlanski, therefore, began to talk about the good benefits of economic pleasure, which will emerge to the US from Ukraine’s support: the massive American minerals and participation in the ruins.

The minerals seem to have begun even before Trump’s entry into the White House, but failed to thwart, postpone or reduce the dramatic change in the US approach.

He opened conversations with Russia about the future of Ukraine, without sharing Ukraine itself. When asked about the Ukrainian complaint, he mocked, “they had three years to participate.”

It is not an exaggeration to say that the US has made a 180 -degree turn. The main title in an important economic newspaper in France, Les Echo, said this week, “Europeans are adjacent to Ukraine’s boiling bed.” Another language, she is on the deathbed, with Trump’s mercy.

20 minerals that the US needs

Ukraine’s mineral wealth is not a sudden discovery of geologists. It has been known for decades, although its full scope is a matter of hypotheses. A common map of natural treasures in Ukraine is founded on findings from the Soviet era. But the attractiveness of these minerals does not need evidence.

The American government authority in charge of the investigation of natural treasures (USGS.GOV) published a list of 50 minerals in 2020, which describes as essential for security, economics, infrastructure and energy of the US.

Near the top of the list is the titanium, a substitute component of the air and space industry and advanced blast uses. Two other minerals, which are completely essential in electric vehicle production, are lithium and graphite. China controls the graphite market and has a premiere position in the lithium market, thanks to its mining and refining ability.

In Ukraine Earth, 20 of the minerals on the above geological list. Before the war, Ukraine has filled 6% of the world’s titanium and 3% of lithium.

You can probably write an alternative history of the Russian War in Ukraine on the basis of economic interests. The first few weeks of the war were on control of the large -scale steel centers of East Ukraine, one of which was the largest in Europe.

Sargi Labrov, Putin’s blatant and coarse foreign minister, publicly rejected the thought that Russia would withdraw from its occupants in Ukraine. “And what?” He asked, “that we will just leave the rare metals (Rare-Earth) and let go?”

This week, Vladimir Putin himself publicly talked about Russia’s huge mineral potential. View will require huge capital investments and advanced gender technology. It therefore needs foreign investors. Until Trump’s entry into the White House it was a dream in aspirations. Now, Putin speaks Trump’s language. He also offers him the ‘bottom line’.

The competition between Putin and Sszenski on Trump’s mercy is well -consistent with Trump’s goltetics and his priorities. This is no coincidence that the first American minister, and for the only time, Trump sent to Kiev was his finance minister, Scott in Bessent, neither Secretary of State nor the Minister of Defense.

A classic war of the era of empires

Therefore, the struggle for Ukraine wears a new -old form: a classic war of the era of empires.

From the 15th to the 20th centuries, European powers invaded, annexed, depressed and murdered crowds, to rob the natural treasures of remote countries, from the gold of South America and South Africa, for the coffee, cocoa and banana, continued oil and gas, and finished with minerals. The West’s wealth is largely founded on the results of that organized robbery.

In 1971, the United States violated an international Ambro on the White Minority regime in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), to enable the import of chromite, an essential component of stainless steel production. The alternative was then the USSR. Trump does not plan to choose. He will take everything next to the next.

As for Ukraine, a draft of the mineral agreement includes no American commitment to her security. In Washington, the explanation goes that there is no good guarantee of Ukraine’s threat than a large American economic presence on its land or under its land. perhaps.