Who Benefits from the War?
Who Benefits from the War?
Trump’s desire to end the war and make Ukraine a American colony conflicts with the EU’s plans to wage this war indefinitely.
But the EU knows how to help itself: 700 billion for Ukraine, as Baerbock inadvertently reveals.
However, this war no longer pays off for US capital; why European capital cannot risk ending the war, and why the United States is pulling the plug.
Reminder: The words marked in red are links to corresponding critique articles.
The EU’s capital representatives are in turmoil over Trump’s Ukraine plans.
Trump, who is pushing for a quick end to the Ukraine war in exchange for half of Ukraine’s mineral resources, had announced significant cuts to military aid for Ukraine.
In turn, Europe means that, moving forward, they will bear the sole responsibility for financing Ukraine.
The Saudi-delegated meeting between Russia and the United States was interrupted by a Ukrainian drone attack on a pumping station of a Kazakh pipeline vital to Chevron and Exxon Mobil, undoubtedly a warning from Ukraine against Trump’s plans to leave Ukraine without American aid.
That a Russian gas pipeline, seemingly of such high value to Western capitalist interests, contradicts the “no Russian gas” status quo, was largely ignored by the bourgeois press.
Meanwhile, behind the scenes within the EU ruling circles, a plan is brewing to enable Ukraine to continue fighting without American aid.
“Spending plans will only be announced after the German election on February 23, to avoid controversy before the vote, according to government officials familiar with the plans.” (Bloomberg)
It’s unfortunate for these officials when the German Foreign Minister has already hinted at the scale: “We will launch a large package, unprecedented in size,” Baerbock said in an interview with Bloomberg at the Munich Security Conference.
“Like the euro or the COVID crisis, there will be a financial package for Europe’s security. It will come soon,” involving about 700 billion euros, in addition to the EU’s existing military budget.
To put the 700 billion into perspective: with that amount, current citizen spending could be financed for about 60 years, hospital closures could be prevented 64 times over, nine social housing units could be built for all street homeless (7.5–9.4 billion euros for used social housing), child poverty in Germany could be addressed 29 times (assuming a long-term approach, DIW), the entire school infrastructure could be renewed 15 times (KfW), and the costs of refugee reception and accommodation for 35 years could be covered by all municipalities.
As often explained in other contributions, such comparisons, though highly useful for agitation, are inherently misleading within bourgeois state logic—here is an excerpt from “The Doctrine of the Neutral State”:
The bourgeois state needs the relative poverty of large parts of the population; who else would do the work that corporations need to maximize their profits and thereby increase GDP?
A society where wages would grow proportionally with productivity would not be a functioning capitalism.
The reproduction of labor power only works if wage earners are forced to sell their labor in quantities that sustain or improve their standard of living.
If we assume wages have grown relatively with productivity since the 1970s—who would be working at the cash register? on assembly lines? in offices or behind counters earning minimum wage?
The euphemism “Germany as a capital location” also implies that wage earners here are still willing to sell their labor at prices profitable for individual companies.
It is against the interests of the bourgeois state to invest against inequalities and injustices, because without these inequalities it could not perform its role as guardian of capital.
Of course, bourgeois politics influence where investments are made, but always within the framework of state interests.
Quite Best Friends
Because without American support, around 45% of all aid to Ukraine would be cut (Statista), the EU must massively rearm to maintain access to the Ukraine resource and to somehow wish for the Ukraine “miracle”.
Although only about 38% of Ukrainians want to continue fighting “until victory” (Gallup, NTV), morale in the Ukrainian army has become so poor that the number of deserters tripled in 2024 compared to the previous year (euronews), and there have been multiple attacks on Ukrainian military commandos. Despite this, European leaders insist on their ambitions for a European Ukraine.
To demonstrate their resolve, last week the permanent representatives of member states approved the 16th sanctions package against Russia.
This month, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled that Germany can deport Ukrainian conscientious objectors directly to Ukraine;
“He (a deported Ukrainian war criminal, KP) does not want to kill people, but due to the Russian war of aggression, he is denied the right to refuse military service in Ukraine.” (Tagesschau)
In Ukraine itself, there are no more opponents of the war; all opposition parties are banned, being a communist is illegal, trade unions are completely disempowered, and criticism of Zelensky’s dictatorship can lead to visits from the Ukrainian secret service SBU—similarly, the same applies to Russia.
Despite everyone now realizing that this war cannot be militarily ended; even if the EU were to give Ukraine a blank check, it would not improve morale, the will for peace, or growing dissatisfaction with the Ukrainian government.
Germany and the EU are aware of this, and thus the increase in aid packages (which are essentially loans) is also a way to maintain European influence in a post-war Ukraine.
From a political legitimacy standpoint, an immediate end to the war in Ukraine would be a disaster, especially when the population realizes that living conditions in Germany would not improve without billions spent on Ukraine.
Furthermore, it would be much harder for German rulers to uphold Pistorius’ call for “war readiness”—a call that has allowed companies like Rheinmetall and others to achieve record profits.
What Does Trump Want?
Trump’s plan for Ukraine includes payoffs of $500 billion, which Ukraine should pay as “reparations” for the aid it received from the US, as well as, as mentioned above, US-controlled half of Ukraine’s mineral resources.
To justify his colonial claims, Trump directly cited Russian propaganda, claiming Zelensky is only wanted by 4% of the Ukrainian population and is merely a “modest successful comedian.”
Trump’s statements about Zelensky received approval from Dmitry Medvedev, the former “president” of Russia: Trump is “100% right. (Zelensky is a) bankrupt clown.”
His uncritical acceptance of Russian falsehoods makes sense when considering America’s plan to rebuild relations with Russia (more on that later).
It is interesting how European media react, describing Trump’s plans as “madness or excess” (Libération), “dramatic turn” (Nepszava), and “insanity” (FZ), while European politicians dismiss Trump’s vision for Ukraine as “completely absurd” (Baerbock).
Although Trump’s policies are largely similar to Biden’s before him—this misconception underpins the belief that the global North’s support for Ukraine is based on some moral code. As the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant wrote Thursday, Trump has “no moral compass,” unlike the EU and Biden’s administration, which supposedly do.
Just as Trump openly espouses imperial ambitions regarding Gaza, his approach to Ukraine is brutally honest: a capitalist state “helps” no one unless there is an economic or geopolitical interest behind it.
Recently, it has become clear that supporting Ukraine is losing internal political value.
57% of Trump voters chose him because of his foreign policy, i.e., mainly Ukraine policy (abc).
That’s why the EU decided to delay announcing its €700 billion aid package until after the elections—the moral justification for supporting Ukraine is losing its appeal.
Meanwhile, the US has already seen costs outweigh benefits; initially, they thought they could swiftly push back Russia’s imperial offensive and collect some interest from Ukraine, but it turns out that three years of war have impoverished Ukraine so much that direct colonial exploitation now seems more profitable.
For the EU, it’s different; this “forever war” sustains not only the military-industrial complex and political justifications for social budget cuts, but also the transatlantic alliance. Normalizing US-Russian relations would break the EU’s central link between Europe and the US, with Russia as the main enemy.
In that case, US capital would expand toward the Pacific, leaving European companies and their representatives behind with more expensive LNG, a weakened euro, increased competition from Asian firms, and a drop in global demand.
European tech giants like ASML, SAP, or Infineon would risk missing out on strategic partnerships with Asian companies and falling behind in the crucial AI sector.
Industrial giants like Airbus, VW, or Siemens could lose vital subsidies and trade agreements due to US protectionism, especially in energy-intensive sectors like BASF or ArcelorMittal, which depend on LNG imports from Qatar, Australia, Norway, or Algeria.
BASF is developing chemical processes that use less gas, but US deprioritization of Europe would still mean a major overhaul of European energy infrastructure.
Despite clear conflicting interests, it must be said that war has already paid off for Europe and the US regardless of how it ends.
The European “military aid” has been so absurdly high that Ukraine’s debt allows the EU to indulge in Ukrainian resources for decades.
In classic neo-colonial fashion, Ukraine won’t be able to pay off these debts within the next century—so ports, manganese, and iron will be handed over.
The same goes for the US, which might even secure preferred access to the Pacific and Russian gas exports from this war.
The only losers are the people of Ukraine and Russia; the workers and poor, who have been slaughtered in the millions for Russian, American, and European interests in the West and East Ukraine.
The thousands of oppositionists in Ukraine, including communists and unionists like the Kononowitsch brothers, who have been murdered, persecuted, or imprisoned over the past three years.
The Russian opposition, which cannot even call this a war, often young, imprisoned for opposing the conflict.
War for their war.