Three years after the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the world has witnessed many surprising and unbelievable events. Among them, there are 3 stories, all related to the number 3.
1. Behind the 3 mineral deals
President Donald Trump fired the first shot, demanding that Kiev cede the rights to mine some precious metals and rare earth elements containing essential elements for high-tech industries, worth up to $500 billion, in exchange for aid. Ukraine refused, saying it was unfair, and proposed its own deal, linking the mineral exchange to US security guarantees.
The US calculation is not only to get back what it costs for aid but also to make a long-term commitment to post-war reconstruction. Kiev is at a disadvantage in this bargain. There are reports that the two sides have agreed to sign an agreement with some changes.
The EU does not want to be slow, seeing the cake so close that someone else might snatch it away. The reason is understandable, they are next door, provide no less aid, and risk shouldering the security support for Ukraine themselves in the coming time. Brussels has declared its readiness to sign a mineral agreement with Kiev whose purpose is no different from Washington's.
In response to the friendly gesture of the White House owner, Moscow announced its readiness to cooperate with the US in the exploitation of precious metals and rare earths, not only in the annexed Russian region but also on its own territory. This is one of the common interests, strengthening the unexpectedly improved bilateral relations.
Behind the mineral deal announcements, many issues emerge. The parties believe that a ceasefire and negotiations to resolve the conflict are imminent. Being late can lead to muddy waters. There is no free lunch. Profits are always hidden behind aid and support commitments. The deal will help the US dominate strategic raw materials, currently China has the advantage. Where does Western aid to Ukraine go?
For Kiev, in addition to its position on NATO’s eastern flank (whose value is somewhat decreasing), rare minerals are a significant commodity to trade. The presence of the US and EU in Ukraine, in whatever form, is an undeclared guarantee.
 |
| With 10 votes in favor and 5 abstentions, the United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution calling on the parties involved to quickly end the conflict and urge the establishment of lasting peace between Ukraine and Russia, on February 24. (Source: UN) |
2. Simultaneously pass 3 draft resolutions
One, Kiev's, sponsored by the EU; two, the US, with amendments and revisions at the UN General Assembly; three, the original US. All three address the Ukraine issue and ending the conflict. The three draft resolutions have some contradictory content. It is indeed one of those rare events.
Resolutions 1 and 2 were passed, with a much lower consensus rate than the previous votes. Russia vetoed both. The US opposed draft 1 and abstained from voting on draft 2. Rarely, the US and Russia agreed on draft resolution 3, which was approved by the Security Council (legally binding). The change in the approval rate shows the trend of the international community. The most important thing now is not to argue or divide about the cause and nature of the conflict, but to find a way to end it.
The fact that the US and Russia have agreed on an important resolution, both related to the issue and causing deep divisions in the international community, shows that they are trying to find ways to improve bilateral relations. Besides their own calculations, both Washington and Moscow believe that they want to end the conflict in a beneficial way; they find common interests in improving bilateral relations.
Most surprisingly, President Donald Trump has repeatedly affirmed that NATO’s expansion and eastward expansion policy and Kiev’s intention to join the military bloc are the underlying reasons for Moscow’s special military campaign. Russia is not at fault. The US “turning the wheel” in its relations with Russia and the Ukraine issue, standing on the same side in the February 24 vote, is too surprising and unbelievable.
Yet that unexpected, unbelievable thing happened, very specifically and clearly. Strategic trust is the basis for every sustainable relationship. When there is trust, anything can happen. Therefore, we can expect more surprises in bilateral and multilateral relations.
3. Moving the three-way relationship
The initial change in the relationship between the US and Russia has shaken the international community, including important trilateral relationships. These are the US-Russia-EU (NATO), US-Russia-Ukraine, US-Russia-China, US-EU-China relationships...
Washington improves relations with Moscow, invisibly enhancing Russia's international position, especially with the EU, and loosening its isolation. Moscow takes this opportunity to create a balance rather than hastily distancing itself from Beijing. The future of US-China relations is difficult to predict, but the elements of competition, tension, and mutual pressure are more prominent when Washington has a free hand in Europe.
The US no longer prioritizes Europe but focuses on the Indo-Pacific. The political and security elements in relations with EU allies remain, but must bring economic benefits. That is a concrete manifestation of the pragmatic foreign policy of the Trump 2.0 era.
 |
| The EU was shocked by the US's dramatic U-turn on the Ukraine issue and relations with Russia. (Source: MD) |
The US “turnaround” on the Ukraine issue and relations with Russia has left the EU at a crossroads. The EU cannot abandon Ukraine, and even less can it alienate the US. Brussels has potential, but is internally divided and has many problems, so it does not have many bargaining chips. They are looking to improve relations with China to create a counterweight and balance.
The EU is tough on talk, but still tries to keep Washington; continues to commit to protecting Kiev, refuses to back down, and even launches the 16th package of sanctions against Russia... If it maintains such a stance, Brussels could become a factor hindering the US's plan to resolve the conflict, being left out or having a reduced role in the negotiation process.
Along with the change in US-Russia relations, the basic triangles of relations have shifted and pulled. Bilateral and triangular relations between major countries are the basic factors that control the situation and the world situation. Therefore, the world and regional situation, including the hot spot of conflict in Ukraine, continues to develop complicatedly.
Russia has a positive factor from the US “turnaround”, is gaining an advantage on the battlefield, so it is not in a hurry to give up its basic goal that has been announced many times; nor does it want to freeze the conflict without a specific, legal, monitored multilateral security agreement and a clear, balanced future relationship with Europe and the US. But Russia also does not want to be too tense, causing the US to lose face, affecting the bilateral relationship that is showing signs of beneficial improvement.
Moscow could therefore make some concessions, such as accepting a UN peacekeeping force (not NATO) and participating in post-war reconstruction of Ukraine. Despite the many obstacles, the international community still has the right to hope for a path to ending the conflict in Ukraine.
Source: https://baoquocte.vn/ukraine-issues-and-my-nga-relationships-but-the-three-three-305844.html
Comment (0)