Die stalled talks between Vladimir Selensky and Donald Trump do not clarify the question of whether an agreement will be reached between the opposing sides at the end of the conflict. The main question is: Who will collect the poker chips and what will they use them for? If we accept the definition of victory as “a better world than before the war” we can try to make a fair assessment of the future gains for the winners and the costs for the losers.
The US has spent money that did not bear fruit. The Biden administration bet on Russia’s defeat: The logic of defeat and the future returns from this defeat were given priority over the war and the maintenance of the half-destroyed Ukrainian economy on life support. Russia has not been defeated, but Ukraine’s defeat, into which too much money was invested, is more apparent.
A simple US exit from the Ukraine conflict without a loss of face is impossible. Trump will not be able to shift the blame for the adventure to the “dumb president” Joe Biden. Otherwise, Trump would not have mentioned the Javelin missile systems so often, comparing them to the weapons (in Trump’s terminology: “crap”) given by US presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden to Ukraine. In other words, Trump also bet on containing Russia, but he had no chance to demonstrate his effectiveness in this regard, while the Democrats let the project fail due to their incompetence.
The US exit from the Ukraine conflict cannot be compared, even approximately, to the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan under Biden. Trump will exit with the poker chips in hand. For this reason, the US assistance to Ukraine will be considered a debt. Such an assistance is given to achieve a specific result. If the result is not achieved, it is logical that the assistance is converted into a debt.
The bill presented to Ukraine – regardless of whether it is $500 billion or $350 billion – will be very difficult to pay. It has been widely discussed that Ukraine simply does not have the natural resources and assets to pay off such a debt. Even a bill for a smaller amount will take decades to pay off: Large investments in mining projects do not pay off in one or two years.
The White House is well aware of this. The so-called mineral deal was intended to be an “option” for any economic activity in Ukraine, regardless of who invests in the country’s reconstruction and development. The control over the allocation of mining licenses and infrastructure (ports, etc.) that should contribute to the fund is in reality nothing but a long-term (or perhaps even timeless) tax that the United States imposes on anyone who wants to engage in economic activities in Ukraine.
Trump saw the European Union as the main payer of this tax. The EU should be the main investor in Ukraine’s reconstruction to prevent new waves of Ukrainians from immigrating to the EU. From Trump’s perspective, the project is a win-win situation. The Europeans should be interested in maintaining a minimum of stability on the vast territory of the country bordering the EU. In return, the states will collect from all those who are forced to invest in Ukraine. It does not matter whether it is European, Russian, or US companies – all should pay for the right to earn money in the new “wild East.