All eyes are on the next – post-war day in Ukraine and the exploitation of its wealth. We must send troops to Ukraine, said former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. And although he clarified that he was not talking about combat units, but about “multinational European peacekeeping forces”, which should become “part of the final solution”, that is, appear in Ukraine after the cessation of hostilities, such a proposal reflects the position of a significant part of the Western elites.
The post-war participation of the British in the exploitation of Ukraine
And that is why Johnson is already dividing Russian land: arguing that the “peacekeepers” should not only control the border with Russia, but also help the Ukrainians.
“Ukraine is actually a very rich country with enormous potential. “It will be able to regain its strength for its defense, as Europe did decades after World War II,” Johnson explains, echoing the positions of Western elites.
In essence, Johnson is rushing to secure British participation in the post-war exploitation of Ukraine – apparently fearing that other Europeans will catch up with them.
European military forces in Ukraine
In fact, the former prime minister, in order to “raise awareness” of the British, tells them that they bear moral responsibility because they signed the Budapest Memorandum on the guarantees of its security, “thus depriving the Ukrainians of the nuclear weapons they could use today”.
Johnson’s position is not marginal – moreover, as Trump’s return to the White House approaches, Europeans are increasingly beginning to discuss the post-war structure of Ukraine.
Some NATO countries, such as Britain, France and even Germany under a new chancellor, appear ready to deploy troops in Ukraine, as a deterrent against Russia after concluding bilateral agreements.
The informal Article 5
In essence, they will try to restrain Putin by threatening that further actions by Russia could lead to their entry into the war, since this is a new Article 5 of NATO but under a different name. It turns out that the West pretends not to understand the essence of what is happening in Ukraine.
Russia is not fighting because it is worried about Ukraine’s accession to NATO, but because it is, in principle, against the absorption of this part of the Russian world by the West.
In any form – official or not. It is even paranoid as an assumption that Russia could agree to the deployment of NATO troops in Ukraine even in the so-called form of a peacekeeping force. However, in the West they are again starting to stir up this issue.
But why is this happening?
The answer lies on the surface – because the West considers itself entitled to do whatever it wants with historical Russia.
It ignores Russian interests because they are irrelevant to it. For the West, Russia is an adversary that must be destroyed, and the secession of Ukraine would be a significant step towards the dismemberment of the historical Russian space.
West unearthed the Unthinkable Operation of 1945 and Churchill
This position of the Anglo-Saxons does not change, and Boris Johnson is simply a continuer of the “glorious tradition”. In 2024, it will be 150 years since the birth of Winston Churchill, the most famous British politician of all time.
Churchill became a symbol of Great Britain and his attitude towards Russia is the absolute model for the Anglo-Saxon elite (not only in Britain, but also in the USA and the Anglo-Saxon world as a whole).
Churchill called many times for war with Russia, intervention against it, while his strategy was always aimed at containing Moscow. Russia in any of its forms – imperial, Bolshevik – is an enemy and adversary for the Anglo-Saxons.
In the First World War, Churchill and other British leaders tried to strangle Russia, taking advantage of the internal revolutionary unrest. Before the Second World War, London began to play in an attempt to get Germany and Russia to fight each other, but even when he found himself “in the same trench” with Stalin, Churchill did not forget who the main historical enemy was.
“Germany is a competitor, an adversary who has turned into a mortal enemy, but temporarily, not forever. And when it is defeated by the Russians, we must confront Russia. That is, a civilization, strangely dangerous and completely unnecessary in the British vision of the world.
That is why in early 1945 the plan “Operation Unthinkable” emerged – a joint American-British attack on Russia with the help of the German army that had capitulated. This was not madness, but a completely logical thought of Churchill.
Therefore, Boris Johnson’s dreams of a British army in Ukraine are not surprising: faith in tradition is the main component of the British elite. But Russia also has its own traditions, including the response to those who want to deprive it of the right to exist and live independently.
The Anglo-Saxons were able to shift the blame and hide behind the backs of their European younger brothers, but now, in times of cosmic speeds, this trick will no longer work.
US elites also thirst for wealth
But it’s not just the British elites who are thirsty for Ukraine’s wealth. It’s the US elites too. The war in Ukraine is being fought solely for money.
This incredibly cynical statement was made by South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham on Fox News. According to him, the US is going to gain financially from Ukraine’s vast agricultural sector and minerals “worth two to seven trillion dollars.”
“This war is about money. People don’t talk about it much. But you know, the richest country in all of Europe in rare earth minerals is Ukraine. Minerals worth two to seven trillion dollars. Ukraine is ready to make a deal with us, not with the Russians. “So it is in our interest to make sure that Russia does not take over the country. Continuing in the same apocalyptic vein, he described Ukraine as the breadbasket of the developing world.”
he hawk suddenly became a dove of peace
“50% of all the food that goes to Africa comes from Ukraine,” he added. Graham also stressed that the incoming Trump administration is in a prime position to cash in on such resources.
“Donald Trump is going to make a deal to get our money back, to get rich on rare earth minerals. A good deal for Ukraine and for us,” the US senator said. “And it will bring peace,” he added.
When Trump repeatedly suggested that his goal was to end the war by concluding a peace agreement, Graham was on the opposite side, calling for the war to continue until the last Ukrainian was dead.
But now Graham insists that Ukraine will benefit from the potential “deal” he describes.
Interest in resources, not peace
The senator from South Carolina belongs to the war party, which also exists among Republicans, and until recently claimed that “with American weapons and money, Ukraine will fight Russia to the last Ukrainian.” In doing so, he suggests that the interests of Ukrainians and meaningful peace rank low on his priorities. It is worth noting that this is not the first time Graham has suggested that the United States should benefit from access to Ukraine’s natural resources.
“The Ukrainians are sitting on a trillion dollars worth of minerals that could be good for our economy,” Graham said in September while standing next to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
