Many tell us what to think. I ask my readers to be skeptical. Question me and others. 
Added on February 28, 2025, in the afternoon. I wrote this text a few days before the heated exchange between Donald Trump and Volodimir Zelenskyy today. It comments well on what happened. I might add that Ukraine does not need Trump to get peace by surrendering to Russia. HAK
Donald Trump, the self-proclaimed master of dealmaking, showed his first moves in ending the war in Ukraine. He asked Ukrainians to give up their mineral resources, estimated at $500 billion, for a carrot of promises of unspecified aid and economic cooperation.
When Ukrainians wanted to talk about the details, Trump belittled them, blaming them and their president for the Russian invasion. Everyone, except the blindfolded Trump supporters, responded with disgust, pointing out the falsehoods. Diplomatically but firmly, French president Emmanuel Macron told Trump the same in front of the cameras. However, Trump’s mind seems to be impermeable to facts and logic.
It implies that his mind was already on the next moves. What could they be? At the press conference with President Marcon, Trump said negotiations with Ukraine were still pending. But a few minutes later, he confirmed that, at his directive, the U.S. voted against the U.N. resolution condemning the Russian invasion.
Those two facts contradict each other. How could they make sense in the mind of the master of dealmaking? To tip the scale in that war, Ukraine needs U.S. help. So, Ukraine can give the U.S. a privileged position in access to its mineral resources in exchange for helping win the war and maintaining peace afterward.
For Trump, making deals equals thinking big and kicking asses. It is in the title of one of his books. How might Trump’s approach materialize this time? From many of his statements, it appears that he believes that, in the long run, Ukraine has no chance to win that war. Trump’s bet is on Russia winning.
The latest news is that Ukraine agreed to sign a revised version of the mineral rights agreement. Does it include provisions accounting for Trump-style dealing?
We have a stalemate on the front lines primarily because, so far, the American support for Ukraine is always a little too little and a little too late. In the U.S., there is a vocally strong opposition to American engagement in that conflict. Consequently, no one would blame Trump if his support for Ukraine in exchange for the $500 billion contract would be as mediocre as the previous administration’s or even slightly weaker. That would tip the scale toward Russia’s military advancement, confirming Trump’s presumption that Russia would win this war.
Then, Russia could take control of the entire Ukraine or could establish a puppet government there. Trump might accept that if Russia were to honor his $500 billion natural minerals contract with Ukraine. Russia would likely accept it because giving the U.S. something they do not have would cost Russia nothing. However, Trump could brag that he gave America $500 billion worth of rare metals while paying almost nothing for it, because after an independent Ukraine is gone, there will be no one to send the money to.
It sounds like a Trump-style calculation. It is unlikely it would work. Even if Russia were to prevail militarily soon, which is doubtful, Ukrainians would form an underground opposition. Russians or their puppet administration would not be able to trust the locals. Knowing the Russian way of acting, the atrocities that Ukrainians experienced in Bucha in 2022 would spread all over the country and intensify. There would be no climate for any business. The entire Ukraine would become as well functioning as Donbas has been since Russia started meddling there in 2014.
As a result, both Russia and Western Europe would spend more on their military, and a full-blown World War III would be unavoidable. As it was in the cases of WWI and WWII, the U.S. would be dragged into it. Millions of people would die. Justice would eventually prevail, as it always does. Russia would lose. Ukraine would regain independence within its 1991 borders. An economic plan similar to the Marshall Plan would be launched to incorporate both the winners and the losers into a peaceful community of nations.
Why not help Ukraine defend itself now, forcing Russia to leave the occupied territories and then building peaceful cooperation?
Now, the U.S. national debt is $36 trillion. Americans need to pay it back. However, people who lent that money, know that if Americans can pay $36 trillion, they can pay, let us say, $40 trillion as well, or even more. Today, they advocate for not spending a few hundred billion that Ukrainians need to defend their independence, knowing that it will lead the U.S. into WWIII, costing at least ten times more. The American government does not have the money to run one more war. It would need to borrow that money.
After winning WWIII, the national debt would be at least $40 trillion. Americans would pay it back. Financiers would squeeze Americans for a trillion dollars or more in interest. The longer the Russian invasion of Ukraine lasts, the more it will cost American taxpayers.
Russia did not destroy the Ukrainian nation during more than two centuries of occupation and will not do it now. For peace in the region, Russia needs to be defeated, and Ukraine needs to regain control of all its lands. For the world’s safety, the aggressor needs to lose so all potential aggressors will know that it is the will of the worldwide community. Then, Americans will have no more wars to pay for.