Maroc - EURASIAREVIEW.COM - A la une - 16/Aug 05:33

US-Ukraine-Russian War: Is It About The Money? – OpEd

Well, “the cat is out of the bag, now.” Thanks to US Senator Lindsey Graham, everyone knows one of the more compelling reasons behind the Ukraine war with Russia. And it has little to do with Kiev’s “agency,” “democracy,” and “liberalism.” The latter are merely ‘talking points’ for public consumption – what Noam Chomsky and Ed Hermann called ‘manufactured consent’ in their 1988 seminal work on propaganda, Manufacturing Consent. Lindsey Graham voiced out loud part of an agenda that is usually hidden from public view or the media – it isn't talked about (admitted) openly. It's a veritable “gold mine,” Graham confessed, and America can't afford to lose control of it. Here's the translation of Graham's admission: It's About the Money. Our reliably hawkish Republican Senator is well known for provocative statements. As early as 2022 (at the beginning of the Ukraine war) Graham was all in for regime change in Russia, when everyone else in the West was trying to downplay such a prospect. Moreover, he is quoted as saying at a press conference with Zylensky that “Russians are dying” in the war, while US aid was the “best money we’ve ever spent.” But with the panache and subtlety of a train wreck the good senator created another stir recently, admitting on CBS's “Face the Nation,” why Russia must not be allowed to prevail in Ukraine. The latter possesses $10 to $12 trillion worth of rich deposits of critical minerals. Here are Senator Graham's reasons justifying the necessity of Kiev (i.e. Washington) winning its fight with Moscow. First, the Kremlin’s access to these deposits would enrich Russia and allow via the Kremlin, China's participation. Second, if Ukraine retains control over the minerals, it could be “the richest country in all of Europe” and “the best business partner we ever dreamed of.” Third, the outcome of the war in Ukraine is a “very big deal” for the US from an economic standpoint. Thus, Graham is saying that Ukraine’s war is “a war we can’t afford to lose.” Credit Business Today for reporting early in the war the “real reason why the US is aiding Ukraine.” As it turns out, commercial, strategic and therefore hegemonic motives play a major role in the need for a Ukrainian victory. So much for all that babel about Kiev’s “right to self-determination,” “democracy,” and “freedom.” The country’s strategic location, critical minerals and enormous acreage of rich arable soil is (from the US’s view) what gives Ukraine its value. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, no one seems to care much about the Ukrainian people – which gives Ukraine its greatest value. Graham seems rather sanguine about Russians “dying,” but plenty of Ukrainians have and will continue to die as well. If one is in any way a student of history (especially in a political context), one must acknowledge that there is nothing surprising or unique here in Senator Graham's admissions. One thing should be mentioned here – there is no doubt that the senator believes he has America's best interest at heart. He has served her faithfully in the military and 21 years in the Senate. That much must be said about the intentions of the good senator from South Carolina. The senator is right; Ukraine has substantial reserves of critical minerals, and there is no doubt that these raw materials are of great significance. At the same time, the global supply of many critical minerals is complicated because they are concentrated in limited locations, which makes them objects of geopolitics. In some ways the situation correlates with the global concerns over oil since the 1970s. The US Department of Energy has created a Critical Minerals List of which some 50 of the most strategic and in short supply are found in Ukraine. The EU (in its efforts to reduce its reliance on China) has also shown great interest in Ukraine’s critical mineral deposits. The Ukrainian Geological Survey has since 2022 worked with the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development to catalog Ukrainian deposits for the purpose of attracting Western investors. Everyone seems to be waiting for the payoff. Despite the war continuing, Western investors have been queuing up, even from such distances as the Pacific Rim – Australia and Japan, especially. And it is the American -- Ukrainian collaboration, the BGV Group, “that has the largest and most diverse stake in Ukraine’s critical minerals.” In the past two years, the US and the UK especially have continued to undermine the opportunities and efforts of Russia and Ukraine to resume direct dialogue, creating pressure on Europe and even the world under which people must choose sides. But these initiatives are not generated spontaneously; rather, they derive from a decades long, ill-conceived American foreign policy. Lack of historical reflection is often the main reason why many countries frequently make mistakes in major policy decisions. The West is representative of this malady, but they are not alone in this distinction (e.g. the divisive issues between China and India). Rather than continuing to fight the Cold War (35 years after it ended), the US might want to rethink its foreign policy initiatives to better coincide with its goals. If America seeks to maintain its economic and political hegemony, it needs to no longer pursue foreign policy initiatives employing – either/or – logic. Engaging a potential adversary need not be distilled into a choice of “either victory or appeasement.” To do so is to remain trapped in a WWII or Cold War mindset where the considered choices (when nuclear weapons are now involved) can no longer be either war or appeasement – the consequences for civilization are too great. The concept of striving for cooperation among major powers rather than through divisive camp confrontation is not new to us. From this orientation the League of Nations and the United Nations were born. Yes, their implementation was flawed and regrettably conflicts remain. But the overall premise behind their creation and existence today remains sound – that of building "peace without victory.” The idea is to foster cooperation among major powers (rather than the camp confrontation we have seen before – and we have today) to deal with difficult diplomatic issues – before the missiles start flying. Not only was this idea not pursued in Ukraine, it was orchestrated otherwise for political and economic reasons. (But that's another essay.) Regrettably, the Biden administration and its allies have ignored the painful lessons of war in the 20th century – they have trampled on the warnings of their predecessors and put us all at risk, needlessly. This is a capitulation of US diplomacy. But this is what happens when a great country like the United States allows decades of mediocre leadership to develop foreign policy initiatives inconsistent with what is in the best interest of itself and its people (Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine.) Unfortunately, we inherit the results of such folly: a strategically important but poorly developed and implemented foreign policy which does not accomplish its implied goal: To foster America’s economic and political hegemony through strategic leadership not bombs and bombast. Given the peril which comes from the destabilizing actions of geopolitical agendas in the world today, America’s continued position of leadership in it is pivotal if peace and stability are to ever have a chance to prosper. America needs a foreign policy to sustain that – today, that does not exist. Rhetoric like that of the good senator from South Carolina is not a solution – it tends to undermine what is in America's best interest. Looks like the sanctions were about the money after all.