How Ukraine, EU can play their hand in Kissinger's triangle

The global plans of Donald Trump’s administration have become quite clear over the past two weeks. After two months of negotiations, Trump has realized that no concessions from the Kremlin regarding the end of aggression should be expected. However, he needs quick results to maintain his political ratings and avoid deep divisions and confrontation within the country.

So, the Trumpists' plan is as follows.

First stage. In a short time, impose a capitulation on Ukraine on Putin’s terms while simultaneously grabbing a large share of Ukraine’s economy, selling it to voters as ensuring "peace" in Ukraine and looting it supposedly for the benefit of ordinary Americans, to whom Trump will "return" money that was allegedly unfairly "stolen" from them by Biden.

In reality, this is an attempt to mask the defeat of American democracy as a "victory." This is the context in which the proposed agreement on rare earth metal development under exploitative conditions for Ukraine should be viewed — as groundwork for Ukraine’s eventual de facto capitulation.

It is clear that politicians and businessmen understand perfectly well that any benefits from rare earth metal extraction cannot be realized before 2040 due to the long-term process of resource exploration and site preparation. Moreover, there is no guarantee that these resources will even be economically viable.

Second stage. Reaching an agreement with Putin’s regime to divide Europe based on their own interests in exchange for pulling Russia away from China's sphere of influence. In this way, Trump aims to secure enormous economic and political gains, throwing all moral norms into the trash bin of history.

Against this backdrop, JD Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference becomes fully understandable — he argued that Europe should solve its own security problems without U.S. involvement and that it is to blame for its own situation because it clings to moral illusions that the White House does not share.

In essence, Trump is following Henry Kissinger’s doctrine on how the U.S. should act in the U.S.-China-Russia triangle. The key principle is to always separate the weaker party from the stronger one and prevent Beijing and Moscow from growing too close, as Washington can handle either of them individually but not together. This concept was successfully implemented by Nixon’s administration in the 1970s when, in exchange for political and economic concessions, U.S. diplomacy managed to draw China into its sphere of interest, significantly weakening the Soviet Union’s influence.

However, after decades of China's rise and Russia's decline on the global stage, American strategists now see only one way to avoid losing to China in the struggle for world dominance — at any cost, they must pull Russia away from their most dangerous competitor.

Incidentally, Jake Sullivan and Joe Biden pursued a similar strategy, but they did so more subtly and covertly to avoid disgrace. This is why they made every effort to prevent the Russian army from being decisively defeated in Ukraine in 2022 and 2023 — something that was just minutes away from happening.

It must be understood that, under this strategy, Washington does not see Ukraine as the only expendable pawn — so is the EU. To counter these plans, Ukraine and EU countries have no other option but to accelerate their integration in the areas of security and economics.

Moreover, who said that only Washington is allowed to manipulate Beijing and Moscow in Kissinger’s triangle? If the current Trump administration does not change its course, the EU and Ukraine could put it in checkmate by considering economic and security agreements with China — something Beijing would be forced to accept under the threat of a U.S.-Russia alliance against it.

Additionally, if the U.S. continues to pressure Ukraine into signing a colonial-style agreement for resource extraction, Ukraine should make it clear that a much better deal could be struck with China instead. It is time to become players rather than eternal fools in a geopolitical game of Polish preference.

P.S. This does not mean that Ukraine should rush into a strategic agreement with China tomorrow. However, as an emergency option under extraordinary circumstances, this alternative must remain in Ukraine’s diplomatic toolkit.

Source

About the author: Volodymyr Omelchenko, Director of Energy Programs at the Razumkov Center

The opinions expressed in blogs do not always reflect the views of the editorial team.