Ukraine conflict a strategic battle over maintaining global hegemon status, for mineral resources, between US, Russia
The ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict has resulted in nearly $300 billion in expenditures, over 150,000 lives lost, and the displacement of more than 10 million people, as reported by The Washington Post. While the war is framed around a simple 'YES' or 'NO' to Ukraine’s NATO membership, a deeper analysis suggests that the conflict is a strategic battle over maintaining global hegemon status and somewhere for mineral resources, particularly between the United States and Russia. It is also to undermine the silent rise of China's threat against USA's unipolar hegemony by stopping the subsequent bandwagoning of countries in Asia and Africa.
The United States has benefited significantly from past wars, including those in the Middle East, Africa, or even both world wars, using its carefully timed interventions to serve its strategic interests. This aligns with Henry Kissinger’s assertion that the U.S. has no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests. As a nation of immigrants and businesses, America sees global conflicts through the lens of economic and geopolitical opportunities.
The Two-Phase U.S. Strategy
The U.S. strategy in Ukraine can be understood in two distinct phases:
Phase 1- Consolidating U.S. Hegemony & Weakening Russia. U.S. has sought to hinder Russia’s resurgence by imposing severe economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and military aid to Ukraine. The war has drained Russia’s resources and slowed its global ambitions.
Phase 2- Deploying a co-engagement policy with Russia preventing a Russia -China axis, also Securing Ukraine’s Mineral Deposits and Reducing Dependence on China. Ukraine possesses vast reserves of critical minerals, which are vital for the future of technology and defense industries. By securing these resources, the U.S. aims to reduce its reliance on China, which currently controls 60% of the production and 85% of the processing capacity of the world’s critical minerals. As a quid pro quo, U.S. is going to provide Ukraine only minimal security guarantees, ensuring the security of its investments while avoiding full-scale military commitments, and thus avoiding confrontation with Russia.
Missed Peace Opportunity and U.S. Intervention
Jeffrey Sachs, an American economist claimed in a speech to the European Parliament to have engaged with then U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, questioning him about Ukraine’s potential NATO membership and announcing the stand at the geopolitical stage and avoiding war. Sullivan dismissed the possibility of NATO expansion in the foreseeable future but refused to publicly announce it. Further, Jeff Sachs said that Russia just desired Ukraine to maintain neutrality which he said Ukraine was ready to negotiate within a week of war. He attended peace talks in Ankara just two weeks after the invasion began where he urged Ukrainian officials to accept a peace deal "to save their lives, save their territory and save their sovereignty" and minimize destruction. Reports suggest that Ukrainian President Zelenskyy was close to signing the deal but backed out under U.S. pressure.
A Win-Win for the U.S.
The U.S. has achieved multiple strategic objectives through the war. First, neutralizing the NATO threat that could have emerged from Ukraine’s membership. Second, weakening Russia’s economy by imposing heavy costs on its war efforts and also imposing sanctions on its oil and gas economy. Third, positioning itself as a key player in any future peace negotiations to control outcomes. Fourth, preventing closer Russia-China ties by keeping Russia engaged in war and under economic pressure. Fifth, securing a mineral deal with Ukraine and again indirectly increasing its presence in the backyard of Russia.
Against the backdrop of this, recently, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy sent a letter to President Trump after his 'OVAL MISHAP' signalling openness to peace talks under Trump’s leadership which proves Jeff Sach's theory right to a large extent. In response, Trump posted on X (formerly Twitter) that he is considering large-scale banking sanctions, tariffs, and further pressure on Russia until a final peace agreement is reached. This reflects Trump’s “America First” and MAGA agenda, prioritizing U.S. economic interests over prolonged foreign conflicts.
Theoretical Perspectives on U.S. Foreign Policy
U.S. is so brazenly hegemonic that it bypassed the European nations which were along with it in supporting Ukraine that it has engaged Ukraine in Saudi Arab without involving them in peace talks. But what is more interesting is that the other side, Russia, is not on the peace dialogue table! U.S. has so conveniently changed its role to suit its economic interest, that till yesterday it was supporting Ukraine but today it is negotiating with it on behalf of Russia and is on Russian side in UN. The opportunism of U.S. is really unpredictable.
The U.S. approach to the war aligns with Kissinger’s ‘‘National Interest’’ doctrine, where nations act purely in self-interest. Kissinger also said, "To be an enemy of U.S. is dangerous, but to be a friend with U.S. is fatal". This also supports the argument of scholars like John Mearsheimer, who, in his book The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001), described how states maximize power to maintain hegemony. When scholars like Fareed Zakaria emphasize the role of domestic politics and leadership personalities (e.g., Trump vs. Biden) in shaping foreign policy, the U.S.'s unwavering pursuit of its strategic interests in Ukraine suggests that broader geopolitical objectives override individual leaders and it shows a continuum between republic and democrat’s foreign policy which was executed even after power change. This also proves Jeff Sachs's allegations of U.S. government’s project about this war.
---
*Divesh Ranjan is a Political Advisor, Amit Poonia is a Political Science scholar and Sandeep Pandey is General Secretary of Socialist Party (India)
Comments