If he becomes president, he will shift NATO’s conflict with Russia into a “dormant” or sluggish mode
On the second day of the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, posters with the slogan «Trump will end the war in Ukraine» appeared. On the one hand, this reflects the accumulated fatigue of subsidizing the corrupt regime in Kiev, which is no secret to anyone, and the disappointment of NATO’s lack of success on the battlefield, which makes the prospect of profiting from the dismemberment of Russia and the expropriation of its natural resources murky.
On the other hand, it indicates a psychological preparation of public opinion for the realization of a New Exclusive Plan (NEP) to reformat both the internal and external policies of the US if Donald Trump comes to power in January 2025.
In early July, the Republican National Committee (RNC) almost unanimously approved the US Administration Program, which was then presented in a press release with 20 key points. This is a concise ideological platform and action plan, fully in line with what can be called the philosophy of Trumpism.
The eighth point of Trump’s Program is crucial: “Prevent World War III, restore peace in Europe and the Middle East, build a powerful Iron Dome missile defense shield across our country — all to be made in America».
Does the commitment to “prevent World War III, restore peace in Europe” mean stopping the supply of weapons to the Kiev regime and financing the war on the other side of the world at the expense of American taxpayers?
Most likely, the answer is «no», but there are several circumstances that suggest that the informal bloc of old-school isolationists and fired-up Sinophobes will take steps to reduce US involvement in the armed conflict on the “mandated territory” of its European vassals.
Richard Grenell, considered in Washington corridors as the most likely future US Secretary of State under President Trump, stated that the war in the Ukrainian theater is taking place «in Europe’s backyard,» not next to the US. He referred to Trump’s opinion that European NATO allies should bear all the burdens of supplying it with weapons and finances.
Meanwhile, Grenell has in mind a model of a possible peace based on two pillars: transforming Ukraine into a federation consisting of autonomous regions (does this remind anyone of Minsk-2?) and cementing the West’s collective commitment (is there a sense of déjà vu here?) not to admit the former Ukrainian SSR to NATO.
Equally symptomatic is the recent conference at the British think tank Westminster, where descendants of imperial colonizers listened to the reflections of Elbridge Colby, a potential replacement for Jake Sullivan as US National Security Advisor, again in the event of Trump’s victory.
Undoubtedly, the audience was dismayed to learn that this Trumpist was advocating for a cessation of hostilities in the Ukrainian theater that it was depleting US military potential in the context of an escalating confrontation with China.
Elbridge Colby’s words should be heeded. Not just because he is the grandson of former CIA director William Colby. The Harvard and Yale graduate is «by no means a favorite of the ‘deep state,’» as the analytical publication Politico points out. At the same time, Colby is «the intellectual leader and rising star of the insurgent wing of the Republican Party, protesting the interventionist and Reaganite thinking that has prevailed for decades».
In March, Colby bluntly stated on FOX News that the entire foreign policy concept that America should first and foremost help Ukraine was a «misconception». As a result, the grandson of an intelligence officer summarized, the U.S. is «bogged down in Europe».
But one should not fall under the illusion that a changing of the guard in the White House with Trump’s arrival will lead to the freezing, let alone the final end, of NATO’s war against Russia using the Ukrainian mercenary army and corrupt government apparatus.
The common denominator of America’s foreign policy is not vows of allegiance to democracy and human rights designed for simpletons, but unbridled greed. There are at least two factors restraining the immediate «pivot to Asia» and removing the Kiev junta from the US administration’s payroll.
The first factor: The refusal to continue NATO’s war in the Ukrainian theater conflicts with the further satisfaction of the selfish interests of the arms barons, the brass heads in cockades, the ideological hawks on Capitol Hill and its environs, as well as the lobbyists and journalists who feed off the military budget. All of them are shamelessly profiting from this war.
No less, if not more, significant driving motive of the global transnational oligarchy is the goal of weakening the dangerous alternative path of civilization development for the collective West. Today it is personified, if not yet fully realized, by Russia and the Russian world.
For this reason, according to the forecast of Alexander Burenkov, Director of the Institute of Russian-Slavic Studies named after N.Y. Danilevsky,
«Ukraine will not be ‘drained’: today it is the most effectively functioning anti-Russian project, which will be a constant source of tension on Russia’s borders, will tie up our forces and attention, will be a beacon and rallying point for all anti-Russian forces in the post-Soviet space and Eastern Europe».
The second factor: Halting the financing of the Kyiv puppet-mercenary outfit will create difficulties in filling the accounting books of US investment oligarchs. Those who have either managed to acquire the most liquid assets at rock-bottom prices (according to some perhaps inflated estimates, about 40% of Ukraine’s arable land is already owned by American companies Monsanto, Cargill, and Dupont) or are just drooling over the mineral resource deposits in this part of the former Russian Empire and Soviet Union.
This last circumstance troubles the descendants of corsairs and cowboys who are used to appropriating other people’s property. As the Internet news publication Scheer Post shamelessly writes: «Ukraine is a ‘gold mine’ with $12 trillion worth of mineral reserves that we cannot afford to lose».
Equally telling is the revelation of uncompromising Russophobe Senator Lindsey Graham, who calls for continuing the war to «deny Russia and China access to Ukraine’s natural resources».
What is the bottom line? The financial and military-industrial oligarchy reaps «dividends from the war» and is not ready to give up profits for the sake of meaningless «dividends from peace».
Will the conflict of interests between corporate America and pragmatic diplomats who believe it is better now to slow the growth of China’s economic and military-strategic potential while neutralizing Russia be resolved? It is unknown. Most likely, Washington will prefer the option of turning the conflict in Ukraine into a «dormant» or sluggish mode.