Trump’s long-touted “Deal of the Century” with Ukraine has finally been signed, granting the U.S. privileged access to Ukrainian mineral resources under the guise of postwar reconstruction—while offering Ukraine little in return.
Was to be expected?
While seeming to be less onerous than previous iterations of the deal, the current treaty will basically tie Ukraine’s hands in the exploitation of whatever mineral resources will remain one the Russian military is done with its current offensives. Of particular note is the fact that the supposed 50-50 fund is highly dependent on the profitability of Ukrainian resource extraction, as well as that US supplies of military equipment will be considered as US monetary contributions to the fund.
For Ukraine, the deal is slightly better than previously, as ownership remains in Ukrainian hands, but in whose hands, as does the decision on which resources to be extracted, and how, only 50% of Ukrainian profits from extraction will have to be put into the fund, and the previously supplied military aid is not counted as money owed to the US.
In addition, already existing projects, including natural gas extraction, are exempt from the 50% contribution requirement. So much said for Donald Trump’s hard line that the US should be fully reimbursed. But the meat of the deal is that the US will keep supplying Ukraine with weapons, and Trump has reneged on his claim that this was “Biden’s War” and it would never have happened on his watch.
The devil is in the details though, Trump now owns this conflict, as it should be noted that the most profitable and desired minerals, coal fields, and gas fields are now firmly under Russian control, and, to be blunt, if the resources remaining in the rump Ukrainian state were worth extracting, the Soviet Union would have already done so long ago.
Dearth of Security Guarantees
Of particular note is the lack of security guarantees, something previously demanded by Zelensky. Instead, there is a vague discussion about “long-term strategic alignment” between Ukraine and the United States, and U.S. “support for Ukraine’s security, prosperity, reconstruction, and integration into global economic frameworks.”
The wording in the document is harder than previously, accusing Russia of a “full-scale invasion”, but as Trump consistently shows, words are cheap. It is believed that the gay secretary of the treasury, Scott Bessent, was vital in easing the pressure and requirements demanded of Zelensky, but without security guarantees, the document is effectively worthless to Ukraine as is the paper it is printed. In the best-case scenario, it still really only benefits the US and that does not mean the US as a whole but certain vested interests.
Saving Private Zelensky
Far from being the “saving” of Ukraine, I believe this agreement is the classic “9mm brain hemorrhage,” small bore shot to the head, for not only Zelensky’s government, but also for NATO and the EU, being a classic finishing off shot.
Much ado was made of Trump’s decision to release US$ 50,000,000 in military aid after the agreement was signed, with western media loudly celebrating the decision, but, in the scale of the current conflict, that is chump change (or should that be Trump change?).
The situation is far worse in relation to EU and UK military aid, where the cupboards are increasingly bare, for example, all functional AS-90 self-propelled 155mm artillery pieces of the British Army have been donated to Ukraine, with the British Army now reliant on a paltry 14 of the Swedish produced Archer 155mm SPG, a pathetic number in the face of the sort of mass artillery duels that make up much of the fighting in Ukraine.
The situation is little better for the rest of Europe, with anemic weapons production meaning arsenals are effectively bare. The EU commission has been hoping that a Europe wide agreement on supplying Ukraine and rebuilding European militaries will kick-start weapons production in the EU and UK.
And we know from the lobbying reports, filled out for the purpose of providing assistance with importation of historic firearms, how Century International Arms is a stakeholder in such deals, for instance, Senate ID number, 5426-24, Mark Burns who has close connections with Dillon Aero, and collectively they have a track record of close links to the international arms trade, both official and in the black.
It is likely naïve to think, at least for the Europeans, that they can avoid continued reliance on US supplied systems, and boosting European weapons manufacturers. They only need to be shown the writing on the wall, i.e., to be bluntly warned by the US that excluding US suppliers from the program was a “No Go” with US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, as he warned that attempts to restrict US companies from competing for tenders would be viewed extremely negatively by the US.
Businessmen should never be politicians
What is increasingly obvious is that Trump’s demands to increase defense spending, and channel that defense spending into US arms manufacturers, is little more than the old New York Mafia protection racquet writ large. One only needs to read Upton Sinclair, Shame of the Cities, and the Brass Check to understand what is going on in the name of making deals.
There are even BIGGER problems for Europe, though, with 12 EU members of NATO banding together to activate the National Escape Clause from EU deficit rules in order to be able to finance their defense spending increases. What is interesting is that it is not, as one would expect, just smaller members that are making this request, but also major economies. A look at the list of those who have made applications to the EU is fairly interesting, those countries being Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Slovenia, and a further four countries, as yet unnamed, are expected to make applications in the future.
Ominous indeed, given the economic straits that countries like Germany find themselves in, using debt to finance military expansion is likely to prove to be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back, or, if you prefer, the nail in the coffin.
Given that the EU countries and the UK have been unable to find troops for the proposed 256,000 over three years “stabilization force” that the UK and France pushed for, with even the vastly reduced target of 25,000 deemed impossible with several major EU members refusing to deploy troops, including Spain, Poland, and Italy.
It is hard to see what increased defense spending will achieve, if there are no men to man the equipment, or money to pay for either. The increased spending on defense will place unsustainable strain on already failing economies, and increased production without cheap energy from Russia is insurmountably expensive, as the collapse of civil manufacturing in Europe shows. Needless to say, Trump’s punitive tariffs on EU products will only make this worse.
Art of the Deal is a Flop!
In the end, Trump’s “art of the deal” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, taking a look at his achievements so far, for example, he changed the Canadian election from a Conservative win to a Liberal win, and seems to have done the same thing in Australia, ensuring Labour leader Albanese’s win.
His tariff policy seems like the biggest issue, and business is not happy. Recession likelihood has increased according to economists, and his claims of making deals have yet to bear fruit, with the Chinese refuting his claims of talks with President Xi.
Immigration is the other BIG Trump issue, but many support enforcement of the immigration laws which Biden ignored, and it is one of the few areas where he is receiving strong public support.
I guess we don’t know the budget impact yet, but many programs are being cut or reduced, to fund a massive increase in military spending. So much said for all the rhetoric about putting the economy first, as given his cultish following of Netanyahu against Iran, its looking more like America First is Israel First, with America picking up the tab and a few well-connected people laughing all the way to the bank.
Seth Ferris, investigative journalist and political scientist, expert on Middle Eastern affairs
