By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The United States is demanding control of a key Ukrainian gas pipeline and significant mineral resources as “payback” for past weapons aid, escalating tensions with Ukraine. Recent US proposals, exceeding earlier offers, include the US government taking control of the Sudzha-Uzhhorod pipeline, a crucial energy artery. Ukrainian President Zelenskyy insists on a 50/50 revenue split in any resource deal, rejecting what some describe as colonial-style demands. Meanwhile, separate discussions involving US envoys are exploring potential Ukrainian territorial concessions to Russia and a post-conflict partition scenario.
Read the original article here
The US demanding control of the key pipeline carrying Russian gas through Ukraine is deeply troubling. This action appears to prioritize American interests over Ukraine’s sovereignty and autonomy, a move that many see as fundamentally unjust and potentially detrimental to Ukraine’s war effort. It smacks of rewarding Russia’s aggression while simultaneously undermining Ukraine’s ability to defend itself. This isn’t simply a matter of strategic maneuvering; it feels like the US is attempting to seize a valuable asset belonging to Ukraine without any consideration for the implications.
The audacity of this demand is staggering. It’s as if the US believes it has some inherent right to dictate the management of Ukrainian infrastructure, especially given the current circumstances. The implication that Ukraine should relinquish control of something so vital to its economy and future is shocking, especially considering the ongoing conflict. The sheer arrogance of the demand speaks volumes.
The situation reeks of self-interest. The proposed deal suggests a scheme to profit from rerouting Russian gas through Ukraine, with the US and Russia potentially reaping the benefits while leaving Ukraine with nothing. This reeks of a cynical maneuver to leverage the conflict for financial gain. Any supposed mineral deals mentioned appear to be unrealistic in their scope given the current territorial realities and the years required to extract the resources.
The timing of this demand further compounds the outrage. While Ukraine fights for its existence against a brutal invasion, the US demands a pivotal piece of its infrastructure. This undermines the very support Ukraine desperately needs to defend itself. It also casts a pall of suspicion over previous US aid. The implied question hangs in the air: Was previous aid strategically designed to manipulate Ukraine, ensuring the US could exploit this pipeline for its benefit?
Many are questioning the rationale behind this brazen grab. What legitimate claim does the US have to dictate the ownership or control of this pipeline? The narrative of the US as a benevolent global actor is crumbling under the weight of such a blatant attempt at resource appropriation. The demand highlights the hypocrisy between how the US interacts with Ukraine versus how it interacts with Russia. This suggests a concerning level of appeasement towards Russia while simultaneously bullying Ukraine.
The outcry is widespread, with many calling out the US’s behavior as bullying and aggressive. The suggestion is that the US is acting like a schoolyard bully, demanding what it wants without regard for the consequences or the rights of others. Such actions only serve to damage US credibility and erode trust in its foreign policy. Many believe the US is far more focused on enriching itself and perhaps a few select American companies at Ukraine’s expense.
There’s a strong sentiment that Ukraine should simply ignore the US demand. The argument is that Ukraine deserves to retain control of its own resources, particularly given its struggle for survival. The suggestion to directly engage with European partners for mutually beneficial trade agreements regarding mineral resources makes considerable sense. It would allow Ukraine to leverage its assets to rebuild its nation without the undue pressure and perceived exploitation from the US.
The perception is that this American action is deeply damaging to US credibility. The actions surrounding the pipeline request reveal a pattern of self-serving actions by the US government, actions that are eroding trust and undermining the US’s standing on the world stage. This behavior, seen as predatory and aggressive, is not only harming Ukraine but could have long-term negative repercussions for US foreign policy.
This whole situation is a stark reminder of power imbalances in international relations. The US, with its vast resources and military capabilities, seems to believe it can demand what it wants, disregarding the sovereignty of smaller nations. Ukraine’s response will be watched closely, not only for its immediate impact but also as a potential model for smaller nations dealing with powerful, self-serving aggressors. The demand casts a dark shadow over the supposed US-Ukraine alliance and fuels deep skepticism about the long-term motivations of the US government.