Global chessboard: US between Ukraine and China Will Washington’s priorities shift? 

In the United States, power does not lie with the general populace but with business elites. Around 50 billionaires finance the Republican Party, while approximately 80 back the Democrats. Financial groups invest heavily in ministers, congresspeople, and senators, as well as their election campaigns, ensuring that these politicians pass laws and implement policies that align with the interests of the oligarchs. The faction currently in power within the Republican Party is assertive and pragmatic, with business leaders approaching problems in a manner typical of their corporate world.

What do businesspeople base their decisions on? "This is not a socialist charity house," as a character from the famous film The Genius once said. Conversations about human brotherhood may hold some meaning in a system where public ownership prevails—such as in self-managed communes based on equality and mutual aid, like the Paris Commune of 1871, where people felt it was their duty to help their neighbours because they jointly managed or at least tried to manage local businesses and neighbourhoods.

Today, however, the world operates under capitalism, where "nothing comes for free." Companies compete with each other and strive for growth—this is the key. Criticism of those who speak of betraying the U.S. is laughable. What does betrayal even mean in the modern world? Under capitalism, it doesn’t exist; money simply flows to where it’s most profitable.

Trump’s demands are reasonable, as large U.S. companies, which fund American aid to Ukraine through their taxes, expect a return on their investment. Surely, you didn’t think they were feeding you out of the goodness of their hearts?

Europe is nearby and concerned, though various winds blow there too. But in the U.S. today, there is an emerging view that Ukraine is not as important as it once seemed. This position has been voiced by intellectuals close to Trump, particularly from the American Heritage Foundation, who influence his policies. Many in Washington believe that the U.S. lacks the resources to address the issues of former Soviet states. Their primary opponent is the new superpower: China.

In a key document—the U.S. National Security Strategy, adopted under Biden—China is described as a multidimensional and the most powerful threat to American interests, the number one competitor. It is stated that China is the only nation attempting to change the global order while possessing growing economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power. Beijing is demonstrating its ambitions to create a sphere of influence in the Indo-Pacific region (IPR) and to become the world’s leading power.

Consequently, America plans to counter Beijing’s efforts and is building its own sphere of influence in the IPR, forming alliances with allies such as India, Australia, Japan, South Korea, and others. The U.S. intends to concentrate its main resources in the IPR to address foreign policy challenges, with the aim of containing China and blocking its attempts to expand its influence.

So, will the U.S. forget about Ukraine? Probably not. Firstly, there are those who believe that the confrontation with China actually requires active U.S. involvement in Ukraine. For example, Israeli expert and advisor to numerous governments, Alon Pinkas, notes that Ukraine was intended to serve as a demonstration platform for China. One of the most pressing issues complicating relations between Beijing and Washington is the question of Taiwan. The island is considered an ally by the U.S., while in Beijing’s view, it is a breakaway territory of separatists. Beijing has never abandoned its plan to bring Taiwan back under its control.

If this were to happen, it would be a devastating geopolitical defeat for the U.S. in the Indo-Pacific region, as many countries there would see that America is unable to defend its allies and would fall under China’s influence. According to Pinkas, American military aid to Ukraine was meant to show China that it’s best not to mess with U.S. allies.

A similar view was expressed by one of the world’s leading experts on global finance, the economist who predicted the 2008 crisis, Nouriel Roubini. For those dealing with financial risks, it is crucial to assess the impact of political decisions on the economy. In his forecast for the spring of 2024, Roubini wrote: “The biggest difference between Trump and Biden is on the issues of NATO, Europe, and the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Some worry that Trump would abandon Ukraine and let Russia win the war. But since he is likely to remain hawkish on China, he may worry about the signal it would send (regarding Taiwan) to let Russia take over Ukraine. Moreover, what Trump really wants is for European NATO members to spend more on defence. If they do that, he may recognize the alliance’s value as it pivots to Asia to deter China.”

It seems that such approaches are not foreign to Trump’s administration. While it doesn’t appear that Trump is abandoning Ukraine just yet, he is undoubtedly influenced by individuals from the Heritage Foundation. However, in any case, he and the corporations that came to power alongside him want Ukraine to pay for military aid. How else could it be? After all, Trump is primarily concerned with the profits of American companies, and everything else comes second.