Until the Oval Office meeting between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy went off the rails, it appeared that Zelenskiy was there to sign a deal requiring Ukraine to contribute 50 percent of profits from its commodity mining to a fund jointly managed by the US. Instead, the Ukrainian leader’s repeated requests for at least some security guarantees culminated in a verbal assault from Trump and US Vice President J.D. Vance. Zelenskiy left empty-handed.
What Ukraine was supposed to gain from the deal was never entirely clear. Whatever the details, Ukraine’s value cannot be reduced to a mineral transaction. The country’s fate could reshape the geopolitical order, potentially shifting the balance of power, in Europe and beyond, for decades to come.
Despite Trump’s and Vance’s narrow characterization, Ukraine is far more than a mineral-rich country fighting off a much larger aggressor. Ukraine was a pillar of Soviet military power during World War II and the Cold War, and remains a major source of agricultural commodities, skilled labor and technological innovation.
Russian President Vladimir Putin understands Ukraine’s strategic value, seeing it as critical to his neo-imperialist project. Before and after World War II, Ukraine was a key hub of the Soviet Union’s military-industrial complex, manufacturing aircraft, ships and tanks, along with the aluminum and steel needed to build them.
The iconic T-34 tank, a mainstay of the Soviet army during World War II, was produced in Kharkiv, while Mykolaiv’s shipyards manufactured the Soviet Navy’s most formidable cruisers and submarines.
Ukraine contributed enormously to the war effort. Seven million Ukrainian soldiers — more than one-fifth of the Red Army — fought against Nazi Germany. Many were senior officers, including Marshal Semyon Timoshenko, a key architect of the Soviet victory.
Ukraine’s strategic importance grew during the Cold War. Ukrainian physicists were at the forefront of nuclear science, conducting the Soviet Union’s first successful nuclear-fission experiments, designing viable nuclear explosives and laying the foundation for the Soviet nuclear-weapons program.
Beyond research, Ukraine was a major producer of nuclear missiles. It produced some of the Soviet Union’s most powerful intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), including the R-36, dubbed “SS-18 Satan” by NATO. Ukraine remained integral to Russia’s nuclear arsenal well into the 2010s, having manufactured 15 percent of its heavy silo-based ICBMs.
Moreover, the Soviet Union’s first ICBMs were designed by a Ukrainian engineer, Sergei Korolev, while he was a political prisoner. After his release, he became the Soviet Union’s chief rocket designer, leading the team that launched Sputnik 1, the world’s first satellite, and sent the first probes to the moon and the first human into space.
Despite Russia’s claim to be the Soviet Union’s sole heir, Ukraine inherited a significant share of the USSR’s military capabilities. When it declared independence in 1991, it had 1.5 million troops and a sizeable naval fleet.
It also had the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal, but under international pressure, Ukraine agreed to relinquish its warheads to Russia in exchange for security guarantees from the US, the UK, and — ironically — Russia itself. Ukraine also agreed to divide the Black Sea Fleet, transferring or selling most of its ships to Russia.
Even after voluntarily giving up much of its military power, Ukraine remains strategically vital, owing to its vast agricultural, natural and industrial resources. Moreover, its resistance to Russian tyranny has forged the most skilled and battle-tested military force in Europe.
However, Russia is determined to undermine Ukraine’s strength by draining its resources, forcibly conscripting tens of thousands of soldiers — particularly ethnic minorities — from the territories it occupies. More than 43,000 people from Crimea and 48,000 from eastern Ukraine have been sent to fight for Russia.
Meanwhile, Ukraine’s natural wealth is being plundered, with Russia seizing control of rare earth deposits concentrated in the regions under its occupation.
If Ukraine were to fall under Russian control, it would significantly bolster Russia’s military-industrial base. Ukraine has emerged as a leader in first-person view drone technology, using air drones to strike Russian ammunition depots and marine drones to cripple Russia’s Black Sea Fleet.
Beyond warfare, Ukraine has a dynamic technology sector, as evidenced by its state-of-the-art digital government platform, Diia, which was adopted by tech-savvy Estonia.
Abandoning Ukraine, as the US appears intent on doing, would have far-reaching global consequences. Known as the “breadbasket of Europe,” Ukraine is one of the world’s top agricultural exporters. Subjugating it would give Russia control over 12 percent of all calories traded worldwide, including one-third of the world’s wheat, half of its sunflower oil, one-quarter of its barley and one-fifth of its corn. It would also give Putin control over Ukraine’s coal and natural-gas reserves.
Ukraine’s immense industrial and human resources once helped make the Soviet Union a global power. Now, an unfavorable ceasefire deal risks putting the country in Russia’s sphere of influence and enabling Putin to achieve his neo-czarist dream.
With access to Ukraine’s military strength, industrial capacity, and natural, human and technological resources, Russia could transform itself from a debilitated country with a smaller economy than Texas into a far more dangerous adversary capable of threatening many countries beyond Ukraine. With the US increasingly acting in Russia’s interests, supporting Ukraine is not just a moral imperative for Europe, it is an existential one.
Anastassia Fedyk is an assistant professor of finance at the University of California, Berkeley. Emilia Marshall is a research fellow at Economists for Ukraine.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
From the Iran war and nuclear weapons to tariffs and artificial intelligence, the agenda for this week’s Beijing summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is packed. Xi would almost certainly bring up Taiwan, if only to demonstrate his inflexibility on the matter. However, no one needs to meet with Xi face-to-face to understand his stance. A visit to the National Museum of China in Beijing — in particular, the “Road to Rejuvenation” exhibition, which chronicles the rise and rule of the Chinese Communist Party — might be even more revealing. Xi took the members
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on Friday used their legislative majority to push their version of a special defense budget bill to fund the purchase of US military equipment, with the combined spending capped at NT$780 billion (US$24.78 billion). The bill, which fell short of the Executive Yuan’s NT$1.25 trillion request, was passed by a 59-0 margin with 48 abstentions in the 113-seat legislature. KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), who reportedly met with TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) for a private meeting before holding a joint post-vote news conference, was said to have mobilized her
Taiwan’s higher education system is facing an existential crisis. As the demographic drop-off continues to empty classrooms, universities across the island are locked in a desperate battle for survival, international student recruitment and crucial Ministry of Education funding. To win this battle, institutions have turned to what seems like an objective measure of quality: global university rankings. Unfortunately, this chase is a costly illusion, and taxpayers are footing the bill. In the past few years, the goalposts have shifted from pure research output to “sustainability” and “societal impact,” largely driven by commercial metrics such as the UK-based Times Higher Education (THE) Impact
The inter-Korean relationship, long defined by national division, offers the clearest mirror within East Asia for cross-strait relations. Yet even there, reunification language is breaking down. The South Korean government disclosed on Wednesday last week that North Korea’s constitutional revision in March had deleted references to reunification and added a territorial clause defining its border with South Korea. South Korea is also seriously debating whether national reunification with North Korea is still necessary. On April 27, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung marked the eighth anniversary of the Panmunjom Declaration, the 2018 inter-Korean agreement in which the two Koreas pledged to
RSS