By HUGO DIONÍSIO*

As a player as he is, Donald Trump wants to keep all the cards on the table. The European Union, despite the bluff, guarantees Donald Trump access to the ultimate prize

In a week in which the expectations that many Atlanticists had regarding the Kursk adventure continue to deteriorate, we continue to witness successive episodes of media circus surrounding the conflict in Ukraine. Between a Donald Trump apparently concerned with a “lasting” peace in Ukraine, a “Europe” that insists on classifying the Russian Federation as a “threat”, a Volodymyr Zelensky aligned with the powers of the European Union, but apparently more open to starting negotiations, an Emmanuel Macron who claims to speak for the whole of Europe and says “Vladimir Putin cannot be trusted”, a Von Der Leyen who insists on a massive increase in military spending and a Ukrainian delegation in Riyadh that, after the degrading spectacle at the White House, finally, a few days later, and after a decisive defeat in the Kursk adventure, comes to accept a proposal for an immediate ceasefire, all these episodes, superficially contrasting, end up fitting together perfectly, complementing each other like a deck of cards at the service of Donald Trump.

To understand how they fit together, the best way to deal with them is to start with the last of these episodes: the farce of the negotiations in Saudi Arabia. It is no secret to anyone, whether or not they agree with the position and intentions of the Russian Federation, what is intended with what has been called the “Special Military Operation”: to demilitarize, denazify, neutralize Ukraine in military matters, preventing its integration into NATO, and to protect the Russian population from the xenophobic persecution that occurred after the Euromaidan coup d’état.

However, the Russians have never shied away from leaving lines open for dialogue, as they demonstrated when they traveled to Saudi Arabia to meet with the US delegation. As is their custom, they did not mince words, play games or send smoke signals. They were very clear that they are not prepared to negotiate fragile and temporary solutions, but only solid, lasting understandings that take into account the security concerns of the Russian Federation. This situation will not have changed, since the press mainstream now comes to say that Russia will have made a list of demands so that they can accept the ceasefire.

However, Marco Rúbio, after negotiating an agreement with the Ukrainian delegation for the famous “rare earths”, ensuring their alleged exploitation by the US, told anyone who would listen that the progress would now be the subject of a concrete proposal to the Russian Federation. The tone was clear and aimed to make us believe that the Americans are hopeful about the outcome of this entire mediation process. Are they?

Let us return to the Russian Federation and ask the following question: to what extent will the proposal for an immediate ceasefire, made at a time when Moscow’s forces have won a resounding and humiliating victory in the Kursk region, be to the liking of the Russian delegation? Will any of the objectives so often highlighted by the Kremlin be guaranteed? Can we deduce from the immediate ceasefire that Ukraine accepts all the demands of the Russian side? And is it to be believed that, given that the Russian Federation is in a position of primacy in the conflict, it will throw everything away with a ceasefire? Especially when, contrary to what was announced, the US has never actually stopped supplying weapons and intelligence to Ukraine?

In fact, as we all heard in the press mainstream, Marco Rubio informed journalists that arms supplies to Ukraine had been resumed. This means that they were never actually suspended. The time between one act and the other, just two days, taking into account the necessary bureaucratic deadlines, would make it impossible for the suspension to materialize. Therefore, if the US did not suspend arms supplies to Kiev's forces, and, on the contrary, supposedly resumed them, what signal are they sending to the Russian Federation? A signal that they want to negotiate? That they are acting in good faith? That they are genuinely interested in making a deal? forcing to Kiev to agree to negotiate?

I don't think so, and on the contrary, the message it could send would be the opposite, namely that the ceasefire will serve the Kiev regime to regroup, consolidate forces and rearm. If that were not the case, what would be the purpose, at a stage of discussing a ceasefire proposal, of resuming a supply that was never actually suspended? What message would it send to Russia? That the US wants to stop the war, but does not want to stop the supply of weapons? It is contradictory to say the least and apparently pointless.

Therefore, given this reality, it is not at all credible that the Russian Federation will accept the proposal for an immediate ceasefire – let us note that Sergei Lavrov has already stated on several occasions that the Kremlin will no longer allow itself to be “naive” – we must ask ourselves, taking all these factors into account, whether it is acceptable to assume that the US proposal is genuine and that the White House’s intentions are genuine. How can they, who have access to all the information, believe that the Russian Federation will accept, without further ado, a proposal of this kind, without any kind of guarantees being provided and, what’s more, while continuing to supply arms to Kiev? As Ushakov, an advisor to Vladimir Putin, said, the Kremlin is interested in a lasting peace and not a “timeout”.

Russia's non-acceptance would be very plausible, particularly following the presentation of demands that Kiev would not be prepared to accept from the outset. Even if, for diplomatic reasons, Moscow's rejection is expressed with great care, so as not to justify or give reasons that justify the definitive distancing of the other parties. This does not mean that Russian representatives are unaware of what is on the table, the real intentions of the White House and the possibility that, for US domestic consumption, the non-acceptance of the ceasefire proposal could be used to further demonize the Kremlin itself. Something that, in the current times, will hardly worry Russians and their representatives.

Indeed, it is nothing new for Donald Trump and his cronies to address the American people and say that the Russian Federation does not want to give up anything, does not want to give in on anything and, therefore, is not interested in “stopping the conflict immediately”. If, for domestic consumption in the US, this discourse works, from a material perspective, looking at the balance of forces on the ground, why would Moscow give in to its intentions, given that it finds itself in a position of military primacy? Especially when Moscow has always stated that it does not want just “an end” to the conflict, but that this end should be accompanied by the resolution of the underlying problems?

This Russian position can only seem revolting to Westerners and Americans who are intoxicated by the propaganda that initially said that “Ukraine was winning the war” and “Russia was going to be defeated on the battlefield”, later that “the conflict is a draw” or, under Donald Trump, that “both sides are losing and Russia has already lost a million men”. For those who knew from day one that this would be a lost conflict for the West, unless it ended in a situation where everyone would lose, that is, in the armageddon nuclear, it is no surprise that the Kremlin does not give up its objectives, since, given the state of affairs, if it does not achieve them in negotiations, it will achieve them on the battlefield.

Let us return to domestic consumption and the circus to confuse and convince the Western people. In a situation where the Russian Federation remains adamant in its claims, which is expected, I believe that Trump will need the “agreement” on minerals from “raw” lands as a trump card to play in front of his audience. After all, why else would so much importance be given to an agreement which, given the knowledge of registered mineral reserves, has very limited material effectiveness? Given that the territory controlled by the Kiev regime does not include mineral reserves of great importance, since those in that region are already in Russian possession or in territory considered “occupied” in the eyes of the Russian Federation, why would Washington place so much emphasis on a handful of nothing?

The importance attributed to the minerals agreement by the White House can be explained by the fact that this understanding constitutes a trump card, to be played internally, at the disposal of the new administration headed by Donald Trump. As business man, in order to continue the Ukrainian venture, after the predictable rejection or presentation by the Russians of demands that the US will have difficulty in guaranteeing, Trump needs at least two arguments: (i) To convince the American people that it is the Russians or the Ukrainians themselves – or even the Europeans – who do not want to make concessions with a view to an understanding, because they did not accept the “reasonable, sincere and generous” proposal of “President Donald Trump”; (ii) The maintenance of spending with Ukraine is safeguarded because “President Donald Trump” made a minerals agreement with Kiev, which guarantees payment to the US, with interest, of the amounts advanced, past or future.

In other words, if the Russians do not want peace, the Ukrainians do not accept it, or the Europeans boycott it, Donald Trump will always have the cards he needs to convince the MAGA people that he did everything he could to end the war, but failed. But even if he failed, he still ensures that the US will not be harmed by the situation. And so, Donald Trump gets out of the Ukrainian problem, remaining in it, but being able to claim that he is not responsible and that he has guaranteed, in any case, access to “valuable” mineral reserves that more than compensate for the costs. Will the war continue? Yes! But Donald Trump will be able to say that it is not his fault and that, unlike Joe Biden, he has found a way to compensate taxpayers for the expenses incurred. Of course, this is a fallacy, since we all know how much US multinationals have appropriated assets held by the Kiev regime.

If this is the case, and I believe it can happen this way, at least Trump will want to have a wide range of options that will allow him to escape gracefully to one side or the other. In any case, he will continue to sell weapons not only to Ukraine, but also to the European Union and other “allies”, something he will not want to do without. If the conflict ends under the conditions he wants, Trump will be able to count on Ukraine’s mineral reserves, which will more than compensate for the end of the arms deal with Ukraine and all the money the US lent them.

This is, therefore, the dual role of the minerals agreement with Volodymyr Zelensky. It allows for the reinforcement of arguments in any situation. The minerals agreement guarantees the payment of past amounts, if the war ends or the US withdraws from it, and of future amounts, if the war continues. In the eyes of the American people, Donald Trump will always come out on top.

For Donald Trump, therefore, everything seems to come down to ensuring that he has a wide range of options at his disposal, which are equally advantageous and provide justifications to the American people. However, there is something that may not fit well with this strategy. And this doubt lies in the fact that there are no known reserves of “rare earths” in Ukraine and, even considering other mineral reserves, it is in the territory that Russia considers its own – Donbass – that the largest and most valuable reserves are found. Hence, one must question to what extent the intention of the ceasefire, associated with the maintenance of arms flows to Ukraine and, in conjunction with Russia’s distancing from the ceasefire proposal, does not yet have another option up its sleeve for Donald Trump.

For someone who loves to talk about cards, this one really does seem like a gamble. If the Russian Federation does not accept the ceasefire or any proposal to divide the disputed lands, guaranteeing the US access to at least part of the region's most voluminous and valuable mineral reserves, the US will not only be able to demonize the Kremlin even further in the eyes of American voters, but will also be able to justify the continuation of the war, the sale of weapons and attempt to aim for – which we know is an illusion – the at least partial reconquest of Donbass, thus giving practical effect to the minerals deal they made with Volodymyr Zelesky's gang.

In other words, the practical material effect of the minerals agreement, if suspicions regarding the meager reserves held by Kiev are confirmed, will only occur if the Russian Federation agrees to negotiate – through negotiation concessions demanded by Kiev – the division of lands in its possession or in the process of being so owned, or, failing that – as Russia is expected not to accept – through the reconquest of part of these lands by forces loyal to Kiev. Without one of these situations, from the outset, the minerals agreement is nothing more than a trump card for internal consumption.

In any case, the US always wins. They win against the Russians, if they give in (buying peace through territorial concessions) and against the Europeans, because they buy more weapons; they win against the Ukrainians, if the Russians do not give in, and against the Europeans, who continue, in any case, on the path of militarization.

Hence, in practice, I tend to believe that Volodymyr Zelensky has thus bought, through the promise of future profits, the support he needs to continue the war, trying to get the Russians to pause the conflict for 30 days, which, while not changing much, would at least temporarily halt the war machine that the West indirectly led the Russian Federation to build. They can also use the rejection of the ceasefire to try to alienate some allies from Russia, by spreading information according to which it would be Russia, and not Ukraine, that would reject the end of the fighting and the containment of the conflict. This will be another trump card at Donald Trump's disposal in trying to bring Russia to the negotiating table.

Donald Trump hopes, through these strategies, to be able to blackmail the Russian Federation with more sanctions, international isolation and arms to Ukraine – where the supposed resumption of supplies fits in wonderfully – in order to obtain territorial concessions from it, where the mineral reserves are located. Will Russia allow itself to be dragged into such a situation? I don’t think so, but in Donald Trump’s mind, this makes a lot of sense. But somewhere along the lines of Marco Rubio’s theory that “Russia is also losing” and that Russia is also interested in stopping the conflict, trying to convey that the desperation is not only in Kiev, but also in Moscow.

At the same time that this is happening and that Donald Trump is opening up all these options, we should also pay close attention to Pete Hegseth’s words in Brussels. If the emphasis of Marco Rubio and Donald Trump is on the need to immediately end the Ukrainian conflict, and it is only now becoming known that they intend to do so superficially and without providing the guarantees that the Russians have been fighting so hard for – despite having repeatedly stated that they reject Ukraine joining NATO – Pete Hegseth’s emphasis, on the other hand, has been more directed towards the need for Europe to take on its own defence, to assume responsibility in the conflict and to face up to the threats that hang over it. It is not worth mentioning what these threats are.

Combining these two speeches, we have the complete picture, and we also understand that what seems to constitute a contradiction between European behaviour and Donald Trump’s claims is not a contradiction at all, quite the opposite. Taking Donald Trump as a kind of demon who brought with him the military collapse of Ukraine, the European Union, after spending three years hiding the real situation on the ground from Europeans, is now using the demonisation of Donald Trump’s administration as a counterpoint to the sanctification it is making of the Kiev regime. This regime has now come to an agreement with… Donald Trump. Closing an apparently “irreconcilable” circle.

The fact is that the resistance and rejection shown by the “leaders” of the European Union to the strategy followed by Donald Trump’s administration, with regard to negotiations with the Russian Federation and the intention – at least stated and now embodied in a simple “ceasefire” – of putting an end to the war in Ukraine, are tremendously contradictory with the practical decisions taken by the EU itself, such decisions being more aligned with the intentions of this “new” USA, than the apparently conflicting discourse might lead one to believe.

Once again, Pete Hegseth said in Brussels, for all to hear, that it was time for Europe to lift the burden (“unburden”) Ukrainian off the backs of its Atlantic allies, so that they can face even more tremendous challenges that only the US can and has an interest in facing.

Hence, this circus of appearances during which we witness a kind of conspiracy against Donald Trump, by the “leaders” of the European Union, when analyzed in depth and beyond appearances, allows us to see that, in some way, the EU remains aligned with the hegemonic strategy of the USA – which did not end under the trumpism.

The European Union, faced with the “desertion” of the United States, instead of demanding that the latter take responsibility for its actions, immediately went along with Pete Hegseth’s speech and, against the wishes of the European people, voluntarily accepted Washington’s proposal to defect and began to comply with the order issued by the White House, betting everything on the militarization of the European Union. It even guaranteed Donald Trump a reward for his “desertion”: an exponential increase in European spending within the framework of an increasingly obsolete NATO.

Clearly, and contrary to appearances, the European Union of the vehement Von Der Leyen not only does not clash with Trump’s claims, but in fact makes his task easier in relation to the Ukrainian disaster. As if its role were to make his task easier, helping to divert attention from what is essential. The European Union diverts attention from Donald Trump, takes on the weight of the US burden, freeing it for its Pacific enterprise. All this while appearing very angry with the new administration, but doing everything in such a way that its actions converge with the strategic hegemonic needs of the US.

By assuming the financing of the project and increasing European spending on weapons, the European Union allows Donald Trump to maintain the range of options I mentioned earlier. If he remains in the conflict, Donald Trump has the justification of Russian, Ukrainian or European intransigence. If he wants to leave, Donald Trump will sell weapons to the European Union and Ukraine. Even if the conflict ends, Donald Trump will always guarantee, through increased European defence funding, the profits he could have obtained from the conflict, with interest. He will also guarantee, if the conflict ends on his terms, a part of the minerals currently held by the Russian Federation.

The US will never lose, no matter what the alternative. At least I believe that is what Trump wants, and this is a claim that clashes with the fact that Russia is very unlikely to allow itself to be blackmailed or dragged into a situation in which the US wins, at Russia's own expense. I do not see Moscow in such a desperate situation. On the contrary, the desperation is on the side of Kiev and the European Union, and it is from them that Donald Trump will take the scalp.

Hence we must clearly distinguish between what entourage Donald Trump says when he says that “the President wants to end this problem”. It all has to do with perspective, and “end” means not being held responsible for what happens. Hence, by blaming Russia, Ukraine, the European Union or Joe Biden, Donald Trump has a wide range of cards at his disposal, which, at least in his Machiavellian mind, allows him to get out of this conflict gracefully.

Donald Trump is leaving the conflict, which does not mean that the conflict will not continue and that the US will not continue to send its weapons there. Donald Trump, on the other hand, whatever happens, will always come out of it clean and with gains – even if virtual or future – to present to his supporters, which will “justify” the failure of the negotiations.

As a player as he is, Donald Trump wants to keep all the cards on the table. The European Union, despite the bluff, guarantees Donald Trump access to the ultimate prize.

*Hugo Dionísio is a lawyer, geopolitical analyst, researcher at the Studies Office of the General Confederation of Portuguese Workers (CGTP-IN).

Originally published on the portal Strategic Culture Foundation.

the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE