Amid the incredible informational noise, a grand project is emerging, in which Ukraine and the United States are supposed to sign a mysterious contract for about $500 billion for an unknown duration and under unknown conditions. Ukraine’s annual gross domestic product is about $200 billion. Therefore, the contract amount is enormous, even if stretched over twenty years.
This is the second version of the contract, which, after Zelensky’s refusal to sign the “sale of Ukraine,” now appears different. It is fundamentally important that the contract is already at the expert revision stage, according to Parliament speaker Ruslan Stefanchuk — which means Ukraine views it as plausible.
As explained by U.S. Treasury secretary Scott Bessent, the contract does not imply that America will own any Ukrainian property, but rather that it will manage a specially created fund. This fund will distribute the income between the two countries according to the agreed proportions, what guarantees the minimization of corruption. The key unclear questions:
(a) Does project’s scope extend to the territories occupied by Russia?
(b) How does Russia view this project?
(c) From these questions arises the most important one: How does this relate to the end of the war?
The most crucial point is that if a ceasefire were not anticipated, then the project would not be considered at all, as it would be absurd. A ceasefire cannot occur without some preliminary agreements with Russia. The U.S. and Russia began negotiating secretly immediately after Trump’s election and do so openly now, thus some points of convergence are being charted. Several signals support this statement: agreement of Russia to use its frozen $300 billion for Ukraine’s reconstruction, the change in the tone of Russian propaganda regarding the U.S. (like in the USSR after signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact in 1939), the refusal of the U.S. to label Russia as an aggressor in the anticipated U.N. resolution, and other “friendly” steps toward each other. The Ukrainian side is undoubtedly aware about it.
If we assume that a ceasefire will be accompanied by the return of all occupied territories to Ukraine (excluding Crimea) — a scenario that is very hard to believe — then the contract would therefore include these lands as well. This is important, as over 60 percent of all the “minerals” in question are located there. It is highly unlikely that the U.S. would not be interested in this part of Ukraine or that it would not be included in the contract. In that case, Russia would literally lose everything it has fought for over three years, which is unacceptable for Russia.
There is another unlikely scenario: The entire contract pertains only to the territory controlled by Ukraine and leaves all occupied areas without any investment. It could still be advantageous for the U.S.
A theoretically conceivable option is that all four regions except Crimea claimed by Putin as parts of Russia (Kherson, Zaporizzhe, Donetsk, Luhansk), partially occupied at this moment, will be ceded to Russia. This is what Putin wants, but it would be unacceptable for Ukraine.
There remains a final scenario: A ceasefire occurs along the lines of confrontation, but the contract nevertheless also includes minerals in the “new Russian territories” regardless of the political status of the latter. It is possible that Russia might agree to this — in any case, it already proposed that a third of its frozen assets will be used for the restoration of these territories. Then an addition to the contract could arise: a third participant, Russia, no matter how wild it may seem.
In any of the three scenarios above, Ukraine stands to gain enormous benefits. The most immediate one is the genuine and immediate cessation of the war. But the most significant is the guarantee of security, at least for the duration of the contract. The reason is simple: The U.S. will not allow Russia to attack a country with which the U.S. now has such serious financial relations. If necessary, the U.S. will deploy troops along the border. If not, just huge joint ventures will be sufficient.
Five hundred billion dollars is the projected output from the project. The amount of investment is unclear, but it will be gigantic. Ukraine, in a certain sense, receives an equivalent of the Marshall Plan with all the ensuing consequences: reorganization of the economy, acquisition of American experience, reduction of corruption, etc. This is far better than a purely military guarantee of non-aggression; it is almost a guarantee for a swift integration into the modern economy. And it is a competitive integration, under the auspices of American corporations. This is just the beginning, based on the overall assessment of reserves in Ukraine of about $15 trillion and its high-tech and hardworking population. To some extent, Ukraine, not Canada, could become the “51st state of America.” Millions who left the country will come back under the new regime. And sooner or later, the territories conceded during the war may be returned, because a post-Putin Russia of the future may want to atone for its great historical sin.
The main moral tragedy of such an outcome will be, of course, the “forgiveness” of the aggressor. Hundreds of thousands of victims will remain unavenged. The vile regime will almost completely evade responsibility. There will be no international crime tribunal. The U.S. will not want to rock the boat again. Russia will pretend “everything is going according to plan,” as it routinely does now. Its internal decay will continue, albeit possibly partially slowed down by the easing of sanctions. The principles of “peaceful coexistence” of the Cold War era will be reinstalled in their ugliest form. This will be a classic case of a modern hybrid situation, where it is impossible to clearly distinguish between right and wrong. Totalitarianism will be able to celebrate yet another (though Pyrrhic) victory over democracy. Yes, Ukraine will gain materially, but nothing akin to the Victory Day celebrations of 1945 will happen. Hatred for the neighbor will remain.
Trump will certainly see such an ending as a great victory, and in some sense he will be right. Europe, despite all its internal problems and divergences with the U.S., will also undoubtedly breathe a sigh of relief — it would be once again covered, albeit in a different form, by the American umbrella. Such an outcome is highly non-trivial and unexpected. It is a vivid example of “thinking outside the box,” in contrast to the previous administration’s painful attempts to drag the cat by the tail. But the shameless disregard for all the principles that Western civilization, the highest cynicism, reducing all problems to purely economic solutions, and the logic of “he’s a son of a b—-, but he’s our son of a b—-” will not go unpunished. The fact that victory has been achieved through some sort of deal with a totalitarian bloody state will have numerous negative consequences, which I won’t elaborate on here. Like any significant action, this end to the war will be perceived by people in polar opposite ways. Politics and morality will once again come into irreconcilable contradiction.
Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 4.0.
Jesus Christ is King
