Source: Xiong Fei Bai
When May began, the US finally abandoned its role as a mediator. State Department spokesperson Bruce said that the US would no longer host talks by flying around the world; it was now up to Russia and Ukraine to propose specific ideas and think about how to end the war.
Secretary of State Rube also pointed out that the US style would change, and it would no longer be the dominant mediator.
Hardly had the words been spoken when the US and Ukraine signed a mineral agreement, the deal that Trump had been longing for, finally signed after twists and turns.
Following this, the US announced the sale of $1.1 billion worth of military equipment to Ukraine.
That's not all. The latest development is that the US joined forces with Saudi Arabia to suddenly increase oil production, which means a drop in oil prices.
As Trump put it: after a significant drop in oil prices, Russia would be more willing to negotiate an end to the Ukraine war.
This combination of moves all happened within the past week. It seems that the US has completed a major policy shift regarding the war.
Since taking office, Trump has constantly applied pressure on Ukraine, always echoing the tone of the big goose to force Zelenskyy to comply.
So why did Trump return to the side of global justice-loving people and why did he make such a 180-degree turnaround? What will the future development of the war be like?
Funeral talks, breaking through obstacles
01
The death of the Pope brought a turning point
Trump's attitude shift occurred early on, traceable back to mid-April, when Russia launched airstrikes on Ukrainian cities. Trump said, "Is Putin using me?" and criticized Putin for having no reason to launch missiles at civilian areas.
But what truly changed things was during the funeral of Pope Francis. On April 26th, both Trump and Zelenskyy attended the Pope's funeral, where they took time to talk for 15 minutes.
Afterwards, the White House stated that the meeting was "highly productive"; Zelenskyy said that this meeting "could become a historic event."
The content of the meeting was never disclosed, but looking back, the core of their exchange was essentially finalizing the subsequent signing of the US-Ukraine resource agreement.
A few days later, on May Day, both sides finally signed the resource agreement. The agreement did not require Ukraine to repay "debt," which Ukraine could accept; however, the other side did not clearly define American security protection for Ukraine.
Main content: ownership and control of minerals were specified - full ownership and control still belonged to Ukraine. All resources within Ukrainian territory and territorial waters were owned by Ukraine, and the Ukrainian government had the authority to autonomously decide on mining locations. The agreement explicitly stated that underground minerals belonged to Ukraine.
The proportion of the mineral fund was set at 50:50, with Ukraine and the US jointly managing the fund, neither having dominant voting rights, fully reflecting the equal partnership between the two countries.
The agreement did not exclude investors outside the US, signaling to other global participants that they could participate in long-term cooperation with Ukraine.
The mineral fund would be fully recharged by new license revenues, covering 50% of the funds from new licenses in key materials and oil/gas projects, these funds would be included in the budget after the fund was established. Revenues from ongoing projects or budget revenues were not included in this fund.
The US provided investment and technology: the fund was supported by the US government through the US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), which would help attract investments and technologies from the US, EU, and other countries supporting Ukraine against Russia.
Finally, neither party would tax the fund. The US's 50% would, in addition to providing funds for the fund, potentially provide aid to offset cash, such as air defense systems needed by Ukraine. Ukraine would inject 50% of national budget revenue through license rents.
Ukraine expected the profits and revenues from the fund to be reinvested into Ukraine over the first ten years.
Such an agreement indeed found no traces of hegemonism, and even the benefits the US could gain were limited because there would be no debt repayment. The benefit the US gained was priority development rights for these minerals for its companies.
It's signed, America wins
Recalling the tense scene at the White House in February when both sides parted ways, with swords drawn and mutual humiliation and resistance, all that tension has been left behind with the signed agreement.
This is an agreement where face matters more than substance. In Trump's view, after struggling for over 100 days, he finally achieved something tangible on the issue he had loudly promoted. This can also provide some explanation to MAGA supporters who believe he is the best dealmaker.
Don't overcomplicate Trump's logic in handling issues; everything is ultimately aimed at putting America first. This agreement removed the tight restriction on unilateral unconditional aid to Ukraine by the US, at least in MAGA's eyes, America is no longer at a disadvantage.
On the other hand, Trump also solved the problem of continued aid while resolving his argument that America was losing out. He won twice.
Of course, such a win-win situation satisfies Uncle Bear; it brings practical benefits to Ukraine at least.
02
Putin is fooling me
Such an agreement, widely regarded as a diplomatic victory for Ukraine, filled the chasm between Trump and Zelenskyy. The pressure now falls on the Kremlin.
Trump clearly lost patience with Putin after signing the contract; he began criticizing Putin: the missile attacks on civilian areas and towns by Putin in recent days are unreasonable. This makes me feel that perhaps he doesn't want to stop the war, but is just stalling for time, needing different approaches, such as "bank sanctions" or "secondary sanctions"? Too many lives have been lost!!!
Trump finally realized what kind of fox he was dealing with; when you talk about a ceasefire, he talks about lifting sanctions; when you say keep the Black Sea route open, he says a three-day ceasefire on May 9th.
Trump often says that Russia has the upper hand; if you say so, then how can Putin make greater concessions? If Putin is a fox, he is a fox that Trump fed.
However, given Trump's temper, once he realizes this, the next step is to give Putin a hard time. The latest method is lowering oil prices.
Two days ago, eight OPEC+ producing countries including Saudi Arabia and Russia will increase production by 411,000 barrels per day in June. This is the second consecutive month of accelerating production following the unexpected large increase in May, with an increase in output and speed exceeding market expectations.
In response, the average price of Urals and ESPO crude oil mix in Russia fell to $48.9 per barrel, the lowest level since May 2023.
Russian government budget estimates for oil prices in 2025 are $82.6 per barrel.
Trump welcomes the fall in oil prices, as it can suppress US inflation. On the other side, it further strikes Russia's economy.
Wait a moment, weren't Russia one of the main initiators of this production expansion? How does it become a strike against Russia?
Petroleum and natural gas revenues account for nearly 30% of Russia's budget, currently the decisive resource that can still generate income. Compared to falling oil prices, not being able to sell oil is the worst outcome for Russia. Therefore, increasing production is akin to drinking poison to quench thirst.
Russia certainly does not want oil prices to fall; Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov once said that falling oil prices caused panic in Moscow, and the Kremlin is monitoring the "extremely volatile and tense" situation.
He also said: "Our economic authorities are closely monitoring this situation, and we will do everything necessary to minimize the impact of this international economic storm on our economy."
Trump said: "Given the current fall in oil prices, Russia is in a favorable position, and they also hope to solve the problem. Ukraine also hopes to solve the problem." This statement is contradictory; removing the second and fourth sentences would make it coherent. Falling oil prices, Russia hopes to solve the problem.
Regarding the Russia-Ukraine war, Trump genuinely wants it to end. After he regained face in Ukraine, the person holding back the peace process is obvious.
Bear says: Don't overcomplicate your judgment of Trump's attitude towards mediating peace; it's simple, he just wants to find ways to gain benefits, these benefits may not necessarily be in America's interest, they could also be in promoting his reputation. As long as there is any achievement, it is enough for him to blow it up into great achievements.
On the other hand, Trump also needs to create some practical benefits for America, such as enhancing European defense. Secretary of State Rube said, don't forget to give orders to US arms manufacturers. This line of thinking is quite pragmatic; everything is business.
After Trump solved the problem of unilateral unconditional aid to Ukraine and gave MAGA an explanation, whether the war ends quickly is not his primary concern. Instead, he can use his stance of supporting Ukraine to continue fighting to pressure his brother-in-spirit, and through economic pressure, force the other side to comply.
As for being a mediator, at least publicly, he can no longer do so, otherwise, he risks being taken advantage of by the old fox, and the face of the greatest dealmaker would be nowhere to be found.
In summary, on the Ukraine issue, Trump has returned to the right track somewhat, and his previous one-sided inclination towards the big goose has been corrected. Next, it's the turn of the big goose, which is currently drinking poison to quench thirst, to become the one insulted and harmed.
Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7502243786282517032/
Disclaimer: This article solely represents the author's views, and you are welcome to express your attitude in the buttons below to "approve" or "disapprove".