When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, the U.S. poured military aid into Ukraine in defense of the “core principles” of sovereignty, territorial integrity and the “sovereign right” every country has “to determine for itself with whom it will choose to associate in terms of its alliances.”
As Western support for military aid became harder to maintain, the warning of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s imperialism rose from a background note to a dominant message. Putin, Secretary of State Antony Blinken explained, has “made clear that he’d like to reconstitute the Soviet empire.” “If Ukraine loses the war,” Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky said, “other countries will be attacked. This is a fact.” He warned that “this aggression, and Putin’s army, can come to Europe.” “[A]t the moment,” he said, “it’s us, then Kazakhstan, then Baltic states, then Poland, then Germany.”
This narrative was effective on U.S. President Joe Biden. Biden is, by his nature, an old cold warrior who looks out from the White House on a Manichean world of democracy versus autocracy. “If Putin takes Ukraine,” he told Congress, “he won’t stop there… He’s going to keep going. He’s made that pretty clear.”
But support for military aid to Ukraine is getting softer and Biden’s time in the White House is setting. Trump is a new president. Zelensky’s team followed him from television to government: they are masters of marketing. A new president needs a new message. They see Trump as less of a cold warrior and more of a transactional business man. So, the message for selling the war to the West is taking on a new tone.
The new message made a quiet debut in the Ukrainian Victory Plan that Zelensky pitched to Washington. The new note went largely unnoticed underneath the louder notes of NATO membership and permission to fire U.S. supplied long-range missiles deeper into Russia. But behind those notes came a new point: “[j]oint protection by the US and the EU of Ukraine’s critical natural resources and joint use of their economic potential.” In exchange for sustained and increased military aid, Zelensky offered the U.S and EU “an agreement… that would allow for joint investments and use of Ukraine’s natural resources, which Zelenskiy said were worth trillions of dollars.” As part of that agreement, Zelensky advertised “uranium, titanium, lithium, graphite and other strategically valuable resources that will strengthen either Russia and its allies or Ukraine and the democratic world in global competition.” Buried under eastern Ukraine is close to 500,000 tons of lithium oxide, a source of the lithium that, among other things, is essential for the batteries in electric cars, making it one of the richest sources of lithium in the world.
That message, since the U.S. election, is getting louder. On November 25, The Washington Post ran an article with the headline “Ukraine prepares to sell Trump on why U.S. should maintain support.”
According to the report, Kiev is “embracing Trump’s transactional approach to diplomacy.” Their goal is to “convince Trump that Ukraine is not a charity case but a cost-effective economic and geostrategic opportunity that will ultimately enrich and secure the United States and its interests.” The marketing pitch includes “offering American companies lucrative business opportunities.”
Yesterday, the war was about the rule of law, sovereignty, protecting Ukrainian territorial integrity and defending the universal principle that aggressors cannot violate internationally recognized boundaries. Today, it is about the acquisition of mineral wealth and natural resources.
The Post reports that “Ukraine is framing its reserves as fruitful business opportunities for Americans. It points to its natural gas storage, the largest in Europe, and the presence of minerals, including lithium, as potentially game-changing for microchips and electric car industries – something that might be of interest to Musk and his electric car business, as well.”
The Post cites two sources, one an economic advisor to Kiev and the other the CEO of Ukraine’s state owned NaftoGaz, who say that “U.S. companies have a great future in Ukraine” if the U.S. acts now to keep its lithium and natural gas in the hands of a “fairly friendly country like Ukraine.”
The new reason for the U.S. to keep pumping money and weapons into Ukraine, the new message for keeping the war going, is already beginning to be heard in Washington.
Senator Lindsey Graham said recently in an interview on Fox, not that the war is about protecting sovereignty and deterring aggressors or about the rule of law, but that “[t]his war is about money.”
“[T]he richest country in all of Europe for rare earth minerals is Ukraine. Two to seven trillion dollars’ worth of minerals that are rare earth minerals, very relevant to the 21st century. Ukraine’s ready to do a deal with us, not the Russians. So, it’s in our interest to make sure that Russia doesn’t take over the place.”
Graham assured his audience that when Trump brokers a peace deal in Ukraine, the deal will “get our money back” and “enrich ourselves with rare earth minerals.”
Ukraine’s cynical offering of itself to the U.S. and disaster capitalism is good for no one. It is especially bad for Ukraine and the United States. It is a horror for Ukraine for obvious reasons: having lost their lives and land, Ukrainians are now to be rewarded with the loss of their natural resources. They are to fight the war just to export their wealth to the United States.
For the United States, selling the war as another in a long history of blatant colonial wars that are fought to control the natural resources of another country, will further alienate the Global South and further drive them into the arms of Russia who has consistently reminded them of this U.S. legacy and consistently benefited from the historical capital of having helped them fight against it.
The Global South has resisted joining the sanctions and the war on Russia because they have resented and rejected this inconsistent and self-serving application of the rule of law. The new messaging risks transforming the war in Ukraine from a war the U.S. at least claimed was a war in defense of core principles and of the rule of law to another colonial war in a class with wars and coups in Guatemala for its fruit; Congo for its gold, diamonds, rubber and minerals; Chile for its copper; Bolivia for its lithium; Iran, Indonesia, Venezuela and Iraq for their oil; and many more.
Justification for the war in Ukraine has matured through many evolutions. It began as a message about core principles and the rule of law. When needed, it evolved into portraying the battle for Ukraine as the defense of the dam that is holding back a Putin bent on the conquest of Europe. But the latest evolution is particularly malignant because of its cynicism, its betrayal of the people of Ukraine and its apparent undressing of American hypocrisy and colonialism.
Ted Snider is a regular columnist on U.S. foreign policy and history at Antiwar.com and The Libertarian Institute. He is also a frequent contributor to Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative as well as other outlets. To support his work or for media or virtual presentation requests, contact him at tedsnider@bell.net.
