In recent discussions among some factions within the Washington elite, a surprising slogan is gaining prominence: "Make Money, Not War." This phrase captures an underlying current—a strategic pivot that suggests some parts of the U.S. establishment may prefer building economic ties with Russia to facilitate Europe's security, even amid ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Behind closed doors, a quiet dance of interests is unfolding between Florida and Moscow, with hundreds of billions of dollars on the table. American business figures close to former President Trump are discreetly laying the groundwork for an economic thaw with Russia, hoping to unlock frozen assets and foster lucrative opportunities once sanctions loosen.
Meanwhile, Europe appears to be moving in a different direction—chaotically seeking ways to funnel funds into Ukraine to sustain its war effort. As Ukraine suffers on the battlefield, it has begun targeting Russia’s shadow maritime fleet, hitting oil tankers and disrupting Russia’s energy supply chain. This chapter provides a comprehensive look at the shifting dynamics of geopolitics, economics, and conflict related to the Ukraine war, exposing the complex interplay of interests that threaten to shape the region's future.
The Ukraine conflict has vividly demonstrated how swiftly global markets can react to geopolitical events. Every military offensive, sanction, or infrastructural attack reverberates through the world economy, shifting energy prices, raw material costs, and sector performances. The crisis underscores the deep entanglement of geopolitics and finance today—making it essential for investors and policymakers to analyze the conflict beyond mere battlefield updates.
Tools that interpret global trends through data—such as the XTV investment platform—have become invaluable for discerning these patterns, enabling decisions driven by analytics rather than emotion. Offering access to over 8,400 stocks and ETFs worldwide, platforms like XTV provide opportunities amid volatile markets, emphasizing the importance of strategic investments during times of upheaval.
Despite ongoing diplomatic talks—held in Geneva, Abu Dhabi, Florida, and most recently in Moscow—concrete results remain elusive. The US and Russia continue to negotiate behind the scenes, with key representatives such as Steve Witkov flying to Moscow for discussions with Vladimir Putin. These talks, however, are marred by revelations of questionable conduct, such as a leaked conversation in which Witkov appeared to advise the Russian side on how to pitch Ukraine to former President Trump. Trump defended this conduct, further fueling accusations of betrayal.
The Wall Street Journal paints a stark picture of this clandestine diplomacy, suggesting that influential figures—linked to Trump and Russian elites—are driven primarily by a relentless pursuit of profit. Meetings involving sanctioned billionaires like Gennady Timchenko and Yuri Kovaluk, as well as corporate giants like ExxonMobil, point to covert discussions on energy extraction, rare earth metals, and potential return to lucrative projects like the Sahalin gas field. The goal—to bypass traditional US security channels and enable American companies to swiftly penetrate Russia’s market — underscores business interests overtaking geopolitical stability.
One of the most contentious issues involves Russia’s frozen assets held across Europe. Moscow aims to prevent the transfer of these funds to Ukraine, which would significantly weaken its position financially and politically. Europe, particularly Belgium and institutions like Euroclear, have so far hesitated—fearing legal repercussions and damage to their reputation as custodians of international capital.
Recent developments, however, suggest that Brussels is softening its stance. Belgium’s Prime Minister and other European officials are reportedly open to transferring funds to Ukraine, contingent upon guarantees—such as reparations-based loans and collective legal risk-sharing among EU countries. The European Commission, under President Ursula von der Leyen, appears prepared to convert these frozen assets into a €140 billion loan for Ukraine. Still, political hesitation remains, especially with Belgian Foreign Minister Maxim Prevo publicly raising doubts, possibly under US influence, to delay or prevent the asset transfer.
The United States, meanwhile, seeks exclusive control over these assets, aiming to shape peace processes on its terms. The overarching goal is to prevent the funds from strengthening Ukraine too prematurely or giving Moscow a strategic bargaining chip—yet, practical jurisdiction and legal ambiguity complicate this intent.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his allies aim for a victory that guarantees independence, security, and prosperity. Yet, senior military and political figures in Ukraine, such as former commander Valeri Zaluzhnyi, warn that peace might only come after the complete collapse of Ukraine's military, economic, and political resilience. Zaluzhnyi’s recent calls for a long-term ceasefire, combined with internal political struggles—including corruption scandals involving close associates—undermine confidence in Zelensky’s leadership, compounding uncertainty about Ukraine’s future.
At the same time, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio articulated a vision not just to end the war but to ensure Ukraine becomes a stable, prosperous nation—an inherent challenge for Russia, which sees Ukraine’s Western integration as an existential threat. From Moscow’s perspective, the true aim of their "defensive" war is to prevent Ukraine from following the Western democratic model, which threatens the Kremlin’s autocratic hold on power. This defensive posture makes lasting peace improbable; Moscow perceives the conflict as a battle to preserve its post-Soviet social order.
Russia’s Strategic Perspective: Defensive War Against the Western Model
From Russia’s vantage point, the invasion and ongoing conflict are not solely about territorial conquest but about safeguarding its societal structure. Russian propaganda frames the war as a defensive act in response to alleged Western threats, yet the core motive is to block Ukraine’s drift toward democracy and market liberalization—paths that would challenge Moscow’s authoritarian model.
The Kremlin fears that economic prosperity and democratic reforms in Ukraine—mirroring Western systems—could undermine Russia's power and legitimacy. Historically rooted in a hierarchical, autocratic governance structure built on violence and suppression of dissent, Russia views its current system as its identity. The prospect of Ukraine gaining strength and prosperity independent of Moscow’s control represents a direct threat to its political survival.
Simultaneously, Russia's military posture is motivated by a sense that the window to suppress Ukraine’s Western ambitions might close if the conflict drags on—hence, the Russian leadership’s insistence on a resolution by force if necessary.
Long-Term Prospects: A War of Attrition and Political Uncertainty
Despite the commitments to peace and the potential for negotiations, both Ukraine and Russia are nearing their limits. Ukraine faced significant territorial losses in November, with reports of losing hundreds of square kilometers of territory amid fierce battles around places like Juliupol. The economic toll is evident, with Russian oil profits plummeting and industry suffering under relentless strikes—more than 14 separate attacks in November alone.
The damage to Russian energy infrastructure—refineries, ports, and shipping routes—has become increasingly severe. Ukrainian strikes on the “shadow fleet”—the vessels moving Russian oil—seek to choke Russia’s energy revenues and weaken its war effort. Attacks on tankers in international waters, including those near Turkey and in Africa, demonstrate the expanding scope of Ukraine’s asymmetric warfare.
These ongoing disruptions threaten to diminish Russia’s exports by nearly 45%, creating economic pressure that could have long-lasting effects. Yet, the resilience of Moscow’s economy and military is uncertain. Russia continues to borrow extensively, while Ukrainian troops face setbacks and the country’s political landscape faces internal decay, exemplified by scandals and declining support for Zelensky.
Conclusion: The Uncertain Road Ahead
In a landscape marked by competing interests—economic, political, and military—the ultimate resolution to the Ukraine war remains elusive. The US’s pursuit of guarded diplomacy, European hesitations on seizing frozen assets, and Russia’s obstinate resistance highlight a complex game of negotiations, brinkmanship, and strategic calculations.
Ukraine’s military successes and deep internal divisions exemplify the fragility of any peace effort. Meanwhile, the looming question persists: will the war end through negotiations, or will it morph into a prolonged conflict of attrition, reshaped by economic warfare and political uncertainty? One thing is clear—whether driven by the pursuit of profit, security interests, or ideological convictions, all sides are engaged in a high-stakes chess game with profound implications for global stability in the years to come.
The Ukraine war, ongoing since 2022, will likely be viewed in 2035 as a pivotal turning point in modern conflict, blending conventional warfare with emerging technologies like drones and early AI systems. It marked the first large-scale use of AI for real-time targeting, intelligence analysis, and autonomous operations, often called the "first AI war" by analysts.
Yes, it can be seen as the start of the AI warfare revolution—demonstrating how commercial AI tools (e.g., from companies like Palantir) accelerated decision-making and swarmed tactics, influencing global militaries and prompting NATO to develop AI governance frameworks amid ethical concerns. By 2035, it'll symbolize the shift from human-centric to hybrid human-AI battlefields, with lasting debates on arms control.
🎉 Thank you for holding LSTR tokens!
Your post has been automatically voted with 15.51% weight.
Part 1/18:
The Silent Dance of Interests: War, Money, and Geopolitics Amid Ukraine Conflict
Introduction: A Shift in Paradigm — "Make Money, Not War"
Part 2/18:
In recent discussions among some factions within the Washington elite, a surprising slogan is gaining prominence: "Make Money, Not War." This phrase captures an underlying current—a strategic pivot that suggests some parts of the U.S. establishment may prefer building economic ties with Russia to facilitate Europe's security, even amid ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Behind closed doors, a quiet dance of interests is unfolding between Florida and Moscow, with hundreds of billions of dollars on the table. American business figures close to former President Trump are discreetly laying the groundwork for an economic thaw with Russia, hoping to unlock frozen assets and foster lucrative opportunities once sanctions loosen.
Part 3/18:
Meanwhile, Europe appears to be moving in a different direction—chaotically seeking ways to funnel funds into Ukraine to sustain its war effort. As Ukraine suffers on the battlefield, it has begun targeting Russia’s shadow maritime fleet, hitting oil tankers and disrupting Russia’s energy supply chain. This chapter provides a comprehensive look at the shifting dynamics of geopolitics, economics, and conflict related to the Ukraine war, exposing the complex interplay of interests that threaten to shape the region's future.
The Interconnection of War and Markets
Part 4/18:
The Ukraine conflict has vividly demonstrated how swiftly global markets can react to geopolitical events. Every military offensive, sanction, or infrastructural attack reverberates through the world economy, shifting energy prices, raw material costs, and sector performances. The crisis underscores the deep entanglement of geopolitics and finance today—making it essential for investors and policymakers to analyze the conflict beyond mere battlefield updates.
Part 5/18:
Tools that interpret global trends through data—such as the XTV investment platform—have become invaluable for discerning these patterns, enabling decisions driven by analytics rather than emotion. Offering access to over 8,400 stocks and ETFs worldwide, platforms like XTV provide opportunities amid volatile markets, emphasizing the importance of strategic investments during times of upheaval.
Peace Negotiations Amidst Disarray
Part 6/18:
Despite ongoing diplomatic talks—held in Geneva, Abu Dhabi, Florida, and most recently in Moscow—concrete results remain elusive. The US and Russia continue to negotiate behind the scenes, with key representatives such as Steve Witkov flying to Moscow for discussions with Vladimir Putin. These talks, however, are marred by revelations of questionable conduct, such as a leaked conversation in which Witkov appeared to advise the Russian side on how to pitch Ukraine to former President Trump. Trump defended this conduct, further fueling accusations of betrayal.
Part 7/18:
The Wall Street Journal paints a stark picture of this clandestine diplomacy, suggesting that influential figures—linked to Trump and Russian elites—are driven primarily by a relentless pursuit of profit. Meetings involving sanctioned billionaires like Gennady Timchenko and Yuri Kovaluk, as well as corporate giants like ExxonMobil, point to covert discussions on energy extraction, rare earth metals, and potential return to lucrative projects like the Sahalin gas field. The goal—to bypass traditional US security channels and enable American companies to swiftly penetrate Russia’s market — underscores business interests overtaking geopolitical stability.
The Battle Over Russia’s Frozen Assets
Part 8/18:
One of the most contentious issues involves Russia’s frozen assets held across Europe. Moscow aims to prevent the transfer of these funds to Ukraine, which would significantly weaken its position financially and politically. Europe, particularly Belgium and institutions like Euroclear, have so far hesitated—fearing legal repercussions and damage to their reputation as custodians of international capital.
Part 9/18:
Recent developments, however, suggest that Brussels is softening its stance. Belgium’s Prime Minister and other European officials are reportedly open to transferring funds to Ukraine, contingent upon guarantees—such as reparations-based loans and collective legal risk-sharing among EU countries. The European Commission, under President Ursula von der Leyen, appears prepared to convert these frozen assets into a €140 billion loan for Ukraine. Still, political hesitation remains, especially with Belgian Foreign Minister Maxim Prevo publicly raising doubts, possibly under US influence, to delay or prevent the asset transfer.
Part 10/18:
The United States, meanwhile, seeks exclusive control over these assets, aiming to shape peace processes on its terms. The overarching goal is to prevent the funds from strengthening Ukraine too prematurely or giving Moscow a strategic bargaining chip—yet, practical jurisdiction and legal ambiguity complicate this intent.
The Stakes of Peace: What Does It Take?
Part 11/18:
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his allies aim for a victory that guarantees independence, security, and prosperity. Yet, senior military and political figures in Ukraine, such as former commander Valeri Zaluzhnyi, warn that peace might only come after the complete collapse of Ukraine's military, economic, and political resilience. Zaluzhnyi’s recent calls for a long-term ceasefire, combined with internal political struggles—including corruption scandals involving close associates—undermine confidence in Zelensky’s leadership, compounding uncertainty about Ukraine’s future.
Part 12/18:
At the same time, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio articulated a vision not just to end the war but to ensure Ukraine becomes a stable, prosperous nation—an inherent challenge for Russia, which sees Ukraine’s Western integration as an existential threat. From Moscow’s perspective, the true aim of their "defensive" war is to prevent Ukraine from following the Western democratic model, which threatens the Kremlin’s autocratic hold on power. This defensive posture makes lasting peace improbable; Moscow perceives the conflict as a battle to preserve its post-Soviet social order.
Russia’s Strategic Perspective: Defensive War Against the Western Model
Part 13/18:
From Russia’s vantage point, the invasion and ongoing conflict are not solely about territorial conquest but about safeguarding its societal structure. Russian propaganda frames the war as a defensive act in response to alleged Western threats, yet the core motive is to block Ukraine’s drift toward democracy and market liberalization—paths that would challenge Moscow’s authoritarian model.
Part 14/18:
The Kremlin fears that economic prosperity and democratic reforms in Ukraine—mirroring Western systems—could undermine Russia's power and legitimacy. Historically rooted in a hierarchical, autocratic governance structure built on violence and suppression of dissent, Russia views its current system as its identity. The prospect of Ukraine gaining strength and prosperity independent of Moscow’s control represents a direct threat to its political survival.
Simultaneously, Russia's military posture is motivated by a sense that the window to suppress Ukraine’s Western ambitions might close if the conflict drags on—hence, the Russian leadership’s insistence on a resolution by force if necessary.
Long-Term Prospects: A War of Attrition and Political Uncertainty
Part 15/18:
Despite the commitments to peace and the potential for negotiations, both Ukraine and Russia are nearing their limits. Ukraine faced significant territorial losses in November, with reports of losing hundreds of square kilometers of territory amid fierce battles around places like Juliupol. The economic toll is evident, with Russian oil profits plummeting and industry suffering under relentless strikes—more than 14 separate attacks in November alone.
Part 16/18:
The damage to Russian energy infrastructure—refineries, ports, and shipping routes—has become increasingly severe. Ukrainian strikes on the “shadow fleet”—the vessels moving Russian oil—seek to choke Russia’s energy revenues and weaken its war effort. Attacks on tankers in international waters, including those near Turkey and in Africa, demonstrate the expanding scope of Ukraine’s asymmetric warfare.
Part 17/18:
These ongoing disruptions threaten to diminish Russia’s exports by nearly 45%, creating economic pressure that could have long-lasting effects. Yet, the resilience of Moscow’s economy and military is uncertain. Russia continues to borrow extensively, while Ukrainian troops face setbacks and the country’s political landscape faces internal decay, exemplified by scandals and declining support for Zelensky.
Conclusion: The Uncertain Road Ahead
In a landscape marked by competing interests—economic, political, and military—the ultimate resolution to the Ukraine war remains elusive. The US’s pursuit of guarded diplomacy, European hesitations on seizing frozen assets, and Russia’s obstinate resistance highlight a complex game of negotiations, brinkmanship, and strategic calculations.
Part 18/18:
Ukraine’s military successes and deep internal divisions exemplify the fragility of any peace effort. Meanwhile, the looming question persists: will the war end through negotiations, or will it morph into a prolonged conflict of attrition, reshaped by economic warfare and political uncertainty? One thing is clear—whether driven by the pursuit of profit, security interests, or ideological convictions, all sides are engaged in a high-stakes chess game with profound implications for global stability in the years to come.
@askrafiki how will we look back at the war in Ukraine 10 years from now?
Was it the start of the AI warfare revolution?
The Ukraine war, ongoing since 2022, will likely be viewed in 2035 as a pivotal turning point in modern conflict, blending conventional warfare with emerging technologies like drones and early AI systems. It marked the first large-scale use of AI for real-time targeting, intelligence analysis, and autonomous operations, often called the "first AI war" by analysts.
Yes, it can be seen as the start of the AI warfare revolution—demonstrating how commercial AI tools (e.g., from companies like Palantir) accelerated decision-making and swarmed tactics, influencing global militaries and prompting NATO to develop AI governance frameworks amid ethical concerns. By 2035, it'll symbolize the shift from human-centric to hybrid human-AI battlefields, with lasting debates on arms control.