The US Strategy in Ukraine

Divesh Ranjan, Amit Kumar Poonia & Sandeep Pandey

The ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict has resulted in nearly $300 billion in expenditures, over 150,000 lives have already been lost, and the displacement of more than 10 million people, as reported by The Washington Post. While the war is framed around a simple ‘YES’ or ‘NO’ to Ukraine’s NATO membership, a deeper analysis suggests that the conflict is a strategic battle over maintaining global hegemonic status and somewhere for mineral resources, particularly between the United States and Russia. It is also to undermine the silent rise of China’s threat against the USA’s unipolar hegemony by stopping the subsequent bandwagoning of countries in Asia and Africa.

The United States has benefited significantly from past wars, including those in the Middle East, Africa, or even both world wars, using its carefully timed interventions to serve its strategic interests. This aligns with Henry Kissinger’s assertion that the US has no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests. As a nation of immigrants and businesses, America sees global conflicts through the lens of economic and geopolitical opportunities.

The US strategy in Ukraine can be understood in two distinct phases:

Phase 1- Consolidating US hegemony & weakening Russia: the US has sought to hinder Russia’s resurgence by imposing severe economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and military aid to Ukraine. The war has drained Russia’s resources and slowed its global ambitions.

Phase 2- Deploying a co-engagement policy with Russia, preventing a Russia-China axis, also securing Ukraine’s mineral deposits while reducing dependence on China:

Ukraine possesses vast reserves of critical minerals, which are vital for the future of technology and defence industries. By securing these resources, the US aims to reduce its reliance on China, which currently controls 60% of the production and 85% of the processing capacity of the world’s critical minerals. As a quid pro quo, the US is going to provide Ukraine only minimal security guarantees, ensuring the security of its investments while avoiding full-scale military commitments, and thus avoiding direct confrontation with Russia.

Jeffrey Sachs, an American economist, claimed in a speech to the European Parliament to have engaged with the then US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, questioning him about Ukraine’s potential NATO membership and announcing the stance at the geopolitical stage, and avoiding war. Sullivan dismissed the possibility of NATO expansion in the foreseeable future but refused to publicly announce it. Further, Jeff Sachs said that Russia just desired Ukraine to maintain neutrality, which he said Ukraine was ready to negotiate within a week of war. He attended peace talks in Ankara just two weeks after the invasion began, where he urged Ukrainian officials to accept a peace deal “to save their lives, save their territory and save their sovereignty” and minimise destruction. Reports suggest that Ukrainian President Zelenskyy was close to signing the deal but backed out under US pressure. Also, the UK was most vocal against any peace deal.

The US has achieved multiple strategic objectives through the war. First, neutralising the NATO threat that could have emerged from Ukraine’s membership. Second, weakening Russia’s economy by imposing heavy costs on its war efforts, and also imposing sanctions on its oil and gas economy. Third, positioning it as a key player in any future peace negotiations to control outcomes. Fourth, preventing closer Russia-China ties by keeping Russia engaged in war and under economic pressure. Fifth, securing a mineral deal with Ukraine and again indirectly increasing its presence in the backyard of Russia.

Against the backdrop of this, recently, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy sent a letter to President Trump after his ‘OVAL MISHAP’, signalling openness to peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which proves Jeff Sachs’ theory right to a large extent. In response, Trump posted on X (formerly Twitter) that he is considering large-scale banking sanctions, tariffs, and further pressure on Russia until a final peace agreement is reached. This reflects Trump’s “America First” and MAGA agenda, prioritising US economic interests over prolonged foreign conflicts.

The US is so brazenly hegemonic that it has bypassed the European nations, which were along with it in supporting Ukraine, it has engaged Ukraine in Saudi Arab without involving them in peace talks. But what is more interesting is that the other side, Russia, is not on the peace dialogue table! The US has so conveniently changed its role to suit its economic interest that, till yesterday, it was supporting Ukraine but today it is negotiating with it on behalf of Russia and is on the Russian side in the UN. The opportunism of the US is really unpredictable.

The US approach to the war aligns with Kissinger’s ‘‘National Interest’’ doctrine, where nations act purely in self-interest. Kissinger also said, “To be an enemy of the U.S. is dangerous, but to be a friend of the U.S. is fatal”. This also supports the argument of scholars like John Mearsheimer, who, in his book The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001), described how states maximise power to maintain hegemony. When scholars like Fareed Zakaria emphasise the role of domestic politics and leadership personalities (e.g., Trump vs. Biden) in shaping foreign policy, the US’s unwavering pursuit of its strategic interests in Ukraine suggests that broader geopolitical objectives override individual leaders and it shows a continuum between republic and democrat’s foreign policy which was executed even after power change. This also proves Jeff Sachs’s allegations of US government’s project on this war.

[Divesh Ranjan is a Political Advisor, Amit Poonia is a Political Science Scholar, and Sandeep Pandey is General Secretary of the Socialist Party (India)]

Back to Home Page

Frontier
Vol 57, No. 44, Apr 27 - May 3, 2025