A-Infos (en) Italy, UCADI #199 - Ukraine at a Crossroads (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

Economic development processes in various regions of the planet have 
given rise to the progressive formation of large economic power groups, 
often resulting in the management of a continent-sized territory. This 
process is particularly evident when looking at the United States, 
Russia, China, and India. Observers and scholars of international 
politics have noted that the crisis of the unipolar world is giving rise 
to a multipolar world in which we are witnessing a tendency towards the 
rebirth of empires, mirroring the geopolitical divisions and 
articulations that have historically characterized the lives of peoples. 
Processes of aggregation concern areas such as that of the Ottoman 
Empire, and more careful analyses should be conducted for specific 
regions such as the Pacific and entire continents such as Central 
America, South America, and Africa.
Europe, or at least it appears to, escapes this process of 
concentration. This continent is home to an atypical aggregate, the 
European Union. Unlike the other political and economic groups we have 
mentioned, it appears heterogeneous, to the point of being unable to 
exercise unity of purpose and political direction on a par with other 
economic and political groups, despite being an economic power and 
effectively identifying itself as the richest region on the planet.

This anomaly stems from economic and historical reasons that we will 
briefly examine, developing some considerations, though not exhaustive.

The European Anomaly

Historically, Europe has been the seat of empires, reaching its peak 
power during the development of colonialism, which allowed Spain and 
Portugal, in particular, and then France and England, to create colonial 
empires spread across the globe. With less success and fanfare, Belgium, 
the Netherlands, and Germany also had their colonial empires, which 
foundered along with all the others, under the weight of history and 
thanks to the anti-imperialist struggle. As is well known, the aftermath 
of the Second World War brought with it a crisis of this system, which 
ended around the 1970s with the process of progressive decolonization. 
France and England, in particular, attempted to maintain a semblance of 
the colonial structure: France through a network of French-speaking 
countries that has only recently collapsed; England, on the other hand, 
was forced to abandon its colonial empire, although it does not seem 
resigned to demobilizing its military presence distributed around the 
world, thanks to the financial power of the City of London, supported 
politically by the structure of the British Commonwealth and the organic 
alliance with the United States.
The countries of continental Europe responded to these events by 
building the European Union, which has gradually strengthened. 
Initially, Britain remained outside this process, attempting to forge an 
alternative alliance with the North Atlantic countries. Only in 1973, 
having acknowledged the failure of the alternative structure to the EU, 
did Britain succeed in gaining membership. From then on, it heavily 
influenced its development, pushing for ever greater enlargement, thus 
diluting its homogeneity and cohesion. Indeed, the historical objective 
of British foreign policy has always been to keep the continent divided, 
a prerequisite for its hegemony.
The development of Europe's productive forces, thanks to the partnership 
established between the European Union and Russia, through Germany, has 
reached a level of development and solidity challenged by the outbreak 
of the pandemic. However, already after the 2008 economic crisis, the 
British ruling class had become convinced that it was necessary to 
separate Britain's future from the continent, as the conditions were 
being created for the Western hemisphere's tendency to become a 
supranational political entity.
To achieve this, Britain had to promote a crisis in the Union's 
aggregation process through two avenues: further enlargement of the 
Union, in order to dilute its cohesion; and the severing of the 
Russian-German axis of collaboration, in order to undermine the 
accumulation processes of the European Union's manufacturing economy.
At the initiative of a group of British Conservative politicians 
accredited in NATO circles, a plan was therefore developed to 
destabilize European political structures, aimed at dismantling 
Ukraine's international role in order to drive its entry into the 
European Union and NATO.

The Destabilization Plan

To move Ukraine into the West, it was necessary to attack the country's 
political governance: this operation was carried out through the coup 
d'état following the events in Maidan Square and the burning of the 
Odessa trade union headquarters. At the same time, the manipulation of 
the country's religious composition began, promoting a schism within 
Orthodoxy that exploited the extreme confessional fragmentation that had 
long been taking hold in the country. With the support and consent of 
the Patriarchate of Constantinople, a process of unification of the 
schismatic components within the country's Orthodox ecumene gradually 
took hold. The goal was to create an autocephalous Orthodox Church that 
would serve as a counterbalance to the presence of the Ukrainian 
Orthodox Church, belonging to the Patriarchate of Moscow, and thus 
undermine the cultural and religious ties that bind Ukraine to Russia. 
This strategic project would come to fruition in 2019 with the 
Constitution of the Autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church, blessed by 
the Ukrainian government and the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
At the same time, a process of de-Sovietization began across the 
country, demolishing Soviet-era monuments, modifying school curricula, 
banning the use of the Russian language and mandating knowledge and 
study of the Ukrainian language, and militarily attacking the country's 
eastern provinces. Affected by the shift of the Ukrainian economy to the 
west, their economic and productive structures and industrial apparatus 
had fallen into crisis and they had requested administrative autonomy 
from Kiev: the war in Donbass had begun. Negotiations held in Minsk on 
two occasions attempted to find a solution to the crisis that would 
satisfy all parties to the conflict. German, French, and British 
negotiators admitted that it was merely a ploy to buy time while the 
secret relations established between Britain and Ukraine produced the 
desired results.
Zelenskiy's electoral victory and the approval of the 2019 law on the 
sale of agricultural property marked the beginning of the crisis. Land 
collected during the Soviet era was put up for sale to the highest 
bidder, provoking an outraged reaction from small farmers, who succeeded 
in a popular uprising by forcing a one-year extension of the legal 
deadline to allow foreign buyers to acquire the property. The powerful 
involvement of Western multinationals in the deal excluded Russian 
oligarchs from investing in the country, in the name of the government's 
anti-Russian bias. Furthermore, the country's increasingly clear 
positioning in the Western world and its request for membership in NATO 
as well as the European Union are of strategic concern to Russia, which 
is demanding guarantees. Ukraine, under the cover of the Minsk 
agreements, continues its rapprochement with the West and its 
integration into the Western military apparatus, so much so that on 
February 24, 2022, Russia invades the country with a "Special Operation."
There is no doubt that the root causes of the war in Ukraine stem 
primarily from Russia's strategic concerns for its security, but Russian 
intervention represents a preemptive response to the British goal of 
destabilizing Russia. Indeed, the termination of the Russian-German 
partnership based on energy and manufacturing trade is not Britain's 
only objective. Britain aims to weaken Russia by promoting its 
dissolution as a unitary state, on the premise that British preeminence 
in Europe is possible only if it impedes the unity of the European 
continent. For Great Britain, Eurasia is an area characterized by the 
presence of a myriad of nations that can be led by a hegemonic presence, 
constituted by Britain.
In revealing this project, we are not revealing anything that has not 
been known for some time. It is worth remembering that from the outbreak 
of the Russian Revolution, it was Britain, represented by Winston 
Churchill, who promoted and financed the expeditions of Yuddenik, 
Wrangel, and Demikin, and supported Pelityura's nationalist project, 
which had as its field of action the Donbass and the vast steppes of 
Ukraine. The project is therefore ancient!
This explains Britain's unconditional support for Ukrainian 
nationalists, the deep ties between British and Ukrainian intelligence 
services, the British government's unwavering support for the war 
against Russia, Britain's leading role in guiding the so-called willing, 
and Britain's rapprochement with the European Union with the aim of 
influencing and effectively guiding its foreign policy, which was 
entirely nonexistent as an autonomous strategic project.
It goes without saying that by accepting British leadership in its 
foreign policy, the European Union is working against its own interests, 
to the point of masochistically accepting the Nord Stream II pipeline 
being cut off by a sabotage operation in which British intelligence 
services, possessing the necessary know-how to carry out the sabotage, 
appear to have actively participated.

Aggressor and Aggressed

In light of this reconstruction, albeit brief, we cannot help but 
conclude that our position on the war in Ukraine must ignore the 
aggressor-aggressed dynamic and get to the heart of the matter, seeking 
to discern the real interests at stake. If this is the case, it is 
neither a matter of defending an attacked country nor a free country, 
because, first and foremost, the regime established in Kiev to guide its 
international and geostrategic decisions is illiberal in nature-with 
regard to civil liberties, religious freedom, cultural freedoms, the 
right to one's own language and to respect for one's ethnicity, respect 
for minorities, and economic and class relations-and is rife with 
corruption. All those who have decided to support the Kiev government, 
considering Ukraine an attacked state, should reflect carefully on these 
aspects to understand that they are facing a far more complex problem, 
of a geopolitical nature, requiring profound reflection regarding 
respect for rights and minorities, the ethnic and cultural components of 
the Donbass populations, and the social and political history of the 
disputed territories.
But beyond idealistic considerations, it is worth shifting the analysis 
to the economic consequences of the ongoing war, also because the 
proverb "the appetite comes with eating" remains valid.
Those who champion Russia's security interests argue that the Russian 
army, operating in Ukraine, is not aiming for territorial annexation, 
since Russia is a vast country with no need to acquire either additional 
territory or additional resources. This consideration fails to take into 
account that Russian intervention in Ukraine has changed its objectives 
since its inception. While the initial march on Kiev aimed at regime 
change and the establishment of a friendly government, with the 
rescheduling of the intervention, Russia shifted its focus, recognizing 
that the transformations wrought on Ukrainian society by years of 
Western intelligence efforts had now caused irreversible damage, at the 
very least undermining solidarity among Russian-speaking people. Hence 
the decision to focus on protecting the Russian-speaking minority and 
acquiring the rebel territories of Donbas.

Furthermore, considering that Trump and the Europeans have over time 
revealed their economic objectives regarding the use and exploitation of 
Ukrainian resources, based on the concept that what is taken from the 
enemy benefits you, Russia is now targeting the acquisition of those 
oblasts containing the majority of Ukraine's mineral resources, the 
focus of Western interest. In this regard, Russia's successes are 
undeniable.

Ukrainian Resources

Regarding its mineral resources, Ukraine holds the first place in Europe 
for uranium mineral reserves, second place for manganese, mercury, 
titanium, and iron ore reserves, third place for shale gas and iron ore 
production, and seventh place for coal. Most of the country's lithium 
reserves are located on Ukrainian soil. Regarding this mineral, 
essential to the semiconductor industry, the Russians recently announced 
that they have taken possession of the Shevchenko area, home to Europe's 
largest lithium deposit (40 hectares). In addition to lithium, the field 
also contains tantalum, niobium, and beryl. Furthermore, as if that 
weren't enough, Russian troops now boast control of Ukraine's 
high-quality coke mines, located near Pokrovsk: the Ukrainian steel 
industry now depends on foreign sources for steel production. The loss 
of control over the lithium deposit will affect the mining company 
European Lithium, registered in Australia and owned by a British 
entrepreneur, on the one hand, and the EU on the other, losing access to 
this resource. This is a very serious loss, considering that a 2020 
European Commission report estimated that by 2030, the EU would need up 
to 18 times more lithium for its "green transition" projects and 60 
times more by 2050.
But there's more: looking at the development of operations on the 
battlefield, it's likely that the Russian advance will be directed 
toward the acquisition of at least the eastern part of Dnipropetrovsk 
Oblast, thus completing the acquisition of a large portion of Ukraine's 
mining lands. Furthermore, the expansion of the Russian presence in Sumy 
Oblast directly threatens territories with identical characteristics. 
Needless to say, as this happens, it will turn into rubbish much of the 
unseemly agreements between Trump and Zelensky regarding US exploitation 
of Ukraine's mineral resources.

But it's not just Ukraine's mineral resources that are at risk, but also 
its agricultural resources. It's worth remembering in this regard that 
even so-called agribusiness risks being jeopardized, given that 
Ukraine's agricultural lands are infested with bombs and pollutants 
produced by the conflict. The war completely ruined the contract signed 
in 2013 by the Ukrainian agricultural company KSG Agro with the Xinjiang 
Production and Construction Corps, a Chinese government organization, 
for the leasing of agricultural land in the eastern Dnipropetrovsk 
region. The agreement provided for an initial lease of 100,000 hectares, 
with the possibility of expanding to 3 million hectares over time, 
equivalent to approximately 5% of Ukraine's territory or the size of 
Belgium. Again, the lease term was 50 years. The primary objective was 
crop cultivation and pig farming, products destined for the Chinese 
market. But this land is currently contested by Russian troops and is 
undergoing intense bombing. Polluted land is declining interest, 
especially since its acquisition by foreign entities had raised 
considerable concerns. The fact remains, however, that according to a 
2023 Oakland Institute report titled "War and Theft: The Takeover of 
Ukraine's Agricultural Land," over 9 million hectares of Ukrainian 
agricultural land-more than 28% of the country's arable land-are 
controlled by a combination of Ukrainian oligarchs and large 
agribusiness companies. The latter include entities based in the United 
States, Europe, and Saudi Arabia. For example, NCH Capital, a US private 
equity fund, manages significant portions of agricultural land in 
Ukraine, with investments from US pension funds, foundations, and 
university endowments. Other companies involved include the French firm 
AgroGeneration and the German firms KWS, Bayer, and BASF. Furthermore, 
the Saudi sovereign wealth fund Public Investment Fund (PIF) and the 
Saudi Agricultural and Livestock Investment Company (SALIC) hold 
significant market stakes in the Ukrainian agricultural sector.

The Rome Conference for the Reconstruction of Ukraine

With these premises, the Conference for the Reconstruction of Ukraine 
was held in Rome on July 10-11: a Recovery Forum, with approximately 
5,000 participants, including approximately 100 government delegations 
and 40 from international organizations. Despite the resounding 
declarations of solidarity uttered by the Prime Minister and the 
President of the Republic, the vultures present to divide the spoils of 
reconstruction have demonstrated their tight-fistedness. Proof of this 
is the fact that only EUR10 million has been allocated for an operation 
that, according to the World Bank, will cost between EUR500 billion and 
EUR1 trillion. Indeed, there is strong resistance to investing resources 
in reconstruction, given that the state of war, widespread corruption, 
and ongoing destruction are neutralizing investment. Ukraine is a failed 
state that relies on EU subsidies for all its needs and is unable to 
repay its debts. The resources received from the EU and the US were 
provided, at least formally, in the form of loans.
After the signing of the document requested by Trump on the "sharing" of 
the country's mineral resources, which repudiates previous agreements 
signed by the Ukrainian government with the British government on the 
same matter, and after any agreements reached between Trump and Putin, 
evidenced by Dmitriev's presence on the Kremlin's peace negotiations 
delegation, which has managed the Kremlin's sovereign wealth fund for 
direct investments since 2011, there are serious doubts that there will 
be anything left to divide among the cowardly and stupid European 
leaders. It is certain that they will have to pay the economic and 
social costs of the war. It is now clear that the West has lost the war 
in Ukraine, and European countries are being forced to pay for the 
damages. They face the prospect of having to invest in a country adrift, 
bereft of its population, its social fabric shattered by war, burdened 
by a diaspora of biblical proportions, deprived of the resources of the 
territory still under the control of the Ukrainian state, a country 
ravaged by a devastating war, and plagued by endemic, deep-rooted, and 
structural corruption.
This means that the cost of the country's reconstruction will fall 
entirely on the budgets of the European Union member states, which will 
have to draw on the resources

of individual states to bear the burden of Ukrainian reconstruction, to 
the full advantage of the profits of the companies that will intervene 
to manage the reconstruction business. This is an investment that has 
all the hallmarks of a failed venture, given that it involves operating 
in a country that no longer has the workforce necessary for 
reconstruction, as its population has halved since the war began. Of the 
25 million remaining inhabitants, 15 million are excluded from 
productive activities, either because they are minors, elderly, or 
war-disabled, unable to carry out full production activities.
The situation is made even more serious by the fact that the country's 
accession to the European Union is not a given, without strong 
resistance from other countries. To date, Ukraine meets none, or almost 
none, of the requirements for membership. Furthermore, its presence in 
the Union impedes the interests of many member countries, which are 
significantly harmed by its presence, since its particular political and 
economic situation would end up absorbing the majority of available 
resources, requiring enormous sacrifices from the tax systems of the 
member countries of the Union, incompatible with the current economic 
situation and the need to support their own welfare systems.
We trust that, strengthened by these reasons, the EU states will invoke 
the conditions set out in the Treaties to indefinitely delay the 
country's accession to the Union and, above all, reject Ukraine's 
proposal to act as the Union's praetorians, offering themselves as the 
backbone, the backbone of the Union's army.
In our view, it is in Europe's interest for Ukraine to lose the war, 
because if Russia fails to impose demilitarization on the country, it 
would retain a significant military force that would constitute by far 
the strongest army in Europe, thanks to its experience gained in war. It 
would effectively impose its own forces as soldiers of fortune for the 
entire Union, making them the mercenary troops destined to perform a 
deterrent function, inevitably ending up performing security functions 
in the face of the rejection of militarization by young Europeans. It 
would be like saying that Europe entrusts the protection of its 
democratic institutions to the Nazis of Azov. Frankly, we believe that 
Europe doesn't need Ukrainian nationalists to act as policemen, 
guardians of its institutions, especially since Nazi tendencies prevail 
among them, as is amply demonstrated by the configuration of the 
Ukrainian political landscape and the configuration of its army.

The Editorial Staff

https://www.ucadi.org/2025/07/27/lucraina-al-bivio/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en