Why Trump is the Only Candidate Who Wants to End Ukraine's Destruction

Like him or not, Trump is blunt, consistent, and transparent. He says what he wants then goes for it. Unlike other politicians, Trump gains little by being president and personally, has everything to lose. His purpose is to keep us out of wars revive an economy that will support the American Dream for all.

Our Washington political class has different aspirations.

With the U.S.’ $35 trillion in debt, Saudi Arabia’s withdrawal from the petrodollar, and the rising dominance of BRICS nations, Washington power factions see protracted war as the only answer to stabilizing our dollar and economy. Here’s how.

The Russia-Ukraine War is not a fight to save a democratic Ukraine, or halt Russian expansion.  In fact, according to Mattia Desmet, author of The Psychology of Totalitarianism, Ukraine’s destruction is a profitable goal.

To understand how Ukraine’s devastation rescues America’s economic shipwreck, it’s necessary to realize that most of what we hear about the Russia-Ukraine war are the surface tensions. What lies beneath is shocking, horrifying, and relies on the concealment and manipulation of truth to create the appearance of righteousness.

To capture the full picture, we must back up for a minute.

The first effective use of propaganda to convince the public to support deadly conflicts was used by the European Alliance in their 1853 Crimean War against Russia.

“The propagandists carefully spread fabricated, ominous information about the Russian enemy among the population. The Russian soldiers were portrayed as outright savages and barbarians, and Russia as a radically expansionist power. Historians agree that this was a propagandistic and false representation of the facts (see here and here).”

The vastly under industrialized Russia with its still infant propaganda machine lost that war.

As Desmet points out, the core strategy of the First Crimean War was to deny Russia access to the Black Sea. This was the only ice-free gateway to the Mediterranean and Russia’s ability to trade with the rest of the world.  Without the Black Sea, ultimately Russia would be economically and militarily destroyed.

These same factors are at play in today’s Russia-Ukraine war. Except the U.S. has deep interests in continuing the carnage.

“A neoconservative power group in the U.S. reverted to the First Crimean War strategy at the end of the twentieth century, attempting to permanently eliminate Russia as a great power: NATO would isolate Russia from the Black Sea through a gradual expansion to the East.

Thanks to the archival documents released after the Freedom of Information Act was enacted in the U.S. in 2017, we also know that this strategy was adopted as a strategic guideline by the Clinton administration in 1994. It was essentially followed by all subsequent American presidents, including Trump, and their administrations.”

Former President Trump has promised to break with this ‘tradition’ if re-elected.

Beginning in the 1990’s NATO moved eastward admitting Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary in 2004. The Baltic states Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, plus Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania were added; in 2009, Albania and Croatia; in 2017, Montenegro; and in 2020, North Macedonia. These countries were immediately provided with temporary or permanent NATO military bases.

The final step was the inclusion of Ukraine in NATO, something considered the crowning achievement of the entire strategy to deliver the final blow to Russia as a great power. Initially, European leaders like Merkel and Sarkozy fiercely resisted because they realized that the annexation of Ukraine made the risk of nuclear war a reality. However, at the NATO summit in Bucharest in 2008, President Bush Jr. made it clear that there was no room for discussion: Ukraine would “have the chance” to join NATO. At that same summit, Putin also made something clear: this would be the step too far in NATO’s advance to the East.

While these moves were mostly strategic, there are enormous economic drivers of the push to isolate Russia and continue the war.

Ukraine has vast rich agricultural farms and extensive natural resources including iron ore, coal, lithium. It is estimated Ukraine contains 5% of the world’s mineral reserves.

U.S. and European nations had long eyed Ukraine’s potential to add to their own portfolios. Aware of its natural wealth, Ukraine instituted a moratorium allowing foreigners to purchase no more than 2 hectares (about 5 acres) of land.

The so-called Maidan revolution in 2014, during which President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted from power was essentially a NATO-directed, U.S. supported overthrow of a democratically elected president (see, among others, this interview with American top diplomat Professor Jeffrey Sachs and the documentary Ukraine on Fire by Oliver Stone).

Almost immediately after the pro-NATO president was seated lobbying began to lift the moratorium on foreign purchasers of land. In 2021 Ukraine did lift the moratorium and companies like Monsanto, Cargill, and DuPont soon bought up nearly 30% of all Ukraine’s agricultural land.

BlackRock, Vanguard, and Blackstone were the asset managers behind the purchases. As agricultural land prices increased Ukrainian farmers were priced out of their livelihoods and future.

While Washington sends billions more to extend the Ukraine war, the same players, BlackRock, Vanguard, and Blackstone continue cashing in. As the ‘hate Russia’ rhetoric grows, NATO’s action are bound to intensify the war piling even more massive profits into their coffers.

It doesn’t stop there.

BlackRock and Vanguard are also significant shareholders in American construction companies Bechtel and AECOM, which signed contracts at the onset of the war for the future reconstruction of Ukraine once it would have been nearly completely leveled by the war.

Adding to this is the fact that BlackRock, McKinsey, and JPMorgan Chase established a reconstruction bank for Ukraine together, leading to the staggering conclusion: the same companies that earn fortunes from buying up Ukrainian agricultural land and its natural resources also profit immensely from supplying the weapons to devastate Ukraine and will ultimately profit from rebuilding it. 

There are no ‘good guys’ in this tragedy. Not Russia, NATO, Ukraine, EU, nor the U.S. Particularly not the U.S. who under the mask of protecting democracy, is funding the war on the backs of American workers, while shoring up a system Washington has destroyed, and gaining wealth and power for very ones who destroyed it.

Trump has promised a quick end to the war and is the only leading politician who has shown the desire and potential ability to accomplish that. Washington leaders claim it is unfair for Ukraine to surrender sovereign territory in the process. But this straw man overlooks that nearly 1/3 of their most valuable sovereign land has already been taken by foreign investors, that war is destroying more by the day, and that there is more money to be made in rebuilding Ukraine than saving it.

That’s why the war continues and why Democrats openly and Republicans clandestinely despise the former president and want voters to hate him too.

Trump’s solution undoubtedly includes some financial arm-twisting.  In an interview Zelensky commented that an outside unilateral deal by Trump makes him “really nervous.”  It should. After all, he was installed by similar outside unilateral interests.

Source