"We are closer to one side": Trump continues to muddy the waters in negotiations with Moscow and Kyiv.

America is trying to be a winner in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine while also seeking to profit from it.

Author: Konstantin Olshevsky

Photo: U.S. President Donald Trump

Trump is grappling with whether he should continue acting as a mediator between Russia and Ukraine. Contradictory reports have emerged from different American media sources. For instance, Politico reported that Washington cannot persuade Ukraine to agree to all of Russia's proposed peace conditions under any circumstances. At the same time, Americans are blaming Russia for this.

Politico learned that South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham's proposal for new sanctions against Russia and a 500% tariff on countries purchasing Russian oil, gas, and aluminum has garnered broad bipartisan support in the Senate. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrow has already successfully discussed the implementation of such tariffs with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

In the meantime, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Besseant told Fox Business Network that America does not intend to withdraw from peace talks with Russia. However, according to Besseant, Washington plans to impose even tougher pressure on Russia.

White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt also confirmed Besseant's statement. She is an ardent follower of President Donald Trump and called him the "chief mediator," stating that Trump is committed to "ensuring a solid peace for Ukraine."

Trump himself, during an interview with NBC News, made a series of significant statements regarding the peaceful resolution of the Ukrainian issue. Trump acknowledged that a peace agreement may be "quite close."

"We are closer to one side, and perhaps not so close to the other. I don't want to say which side we are closer to." The U.S. president vaguely stated.

However, it doesn't take much insight to understand: America is getting closer to Ukraine. Especially after signing the mineral resource agreement. Enrico Olari, an Italian analyst, wrote in the Geopolitical News magazine that Americans can now gain more benefits from the Ukrainian conflict.

Firstly, American arms manufacturers supplying weapons and ammunition to the Ukrainian army are making huge profits. Now, American companies have gained access to Ukraine's raw materials. In the long run, after a peace agreement is reached, American companies will participate in the reconstruction of Ukraine.

"The Americans want to 'export' peace and democracy again. Just like they did before with the 'evil' Serbs, Afghans, or Vietnamese," Olari angrily said, "Now Trump is playing under the guise of apparent pacifism. Despite this, he actually wants America to be a winner in this conflict."

"The much-publicized agreement brings nothing substantial to Ukraine and leaves it in a hostage situation," Philip O'Brien, a Scottish political scientist, wrote on the Substack platform, "In fact, this means that any new aid from America to Ukraine will end. Only when the Americans are convinced that their investments in Ukraine are secure will they provide assistance to this country again."

However, The Washington Post pointed out that the new agreement with the Americans may not be as profitable as it initially appears. Firstly, building a stable supply chain for the required minerals (such as titanium, graphite, and lithium) from Ukraine will take at least ten years. Meanwhile, China is currently restricting the supply of 17 critical rare earth metals essential to industry to the United States.

The data on Ukraine's mineral reserves are outdated, and there are no latest geological exploration results. Even if a peace agreement is reached, investment will carry great risks. Experts interviewed by The Washington Post are confident that American companies will not be willing to invest in Ukraine in the coming years.

"It's hard for us to raise funds for mineral exploration in countries like the United States, Canada, and Australia. Imagine how difficult it would be to raise funds for these preliminary works in Ukraine," Ashley Zumwalt-Forbes, former deputy director of the Critical Materials Office at the U.S. Department of Energy, said.

Even after 10 years, the profits from mining minerals in Ukraine will be very low. Because large-scale drilling work requires massive investments in technology and manpower. Processing costs are higher than extraction costs. Factories require large resources, and most of Ukraine's such infrastructure has been severely damaged in the war. American companies are unlikely to be willing to invest billions of dollars in this.

For the latest news and all the most important content about the Ukrainian peace talks — follow the author for more information.

Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7500880115002294803/

Disclaimer: This article represents the author's personal views. Please express your attitude by clicking the "like/dislike" buttons below.