By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy revealed that Ukrainian intelligence services have briefed him on a proposed Russian economic cooperation package with the United States, reportedly valued at approximately US$12 trillion. Zelenskyy stated that this “Dmitriev package” is intended to foster bilateral economic ties between Russia and the US, with potential implications for Ukraine. He emphasized that Ukraine will not consent to any agreements concerning its territory that do not align with its constitution and laws, and that such discussions must include Ukrainian participation.
Read the original article here
The notion of Russia offering the United States a staggering $12 trillion cooperation package, as reportedly relayed by President Zelenskyy, immediately sparks a cascade of skepticism and critical analysis. It’s crucial to question the very foundation of such a proposition: is this in rubles, a currency whose value has been severely eroded, or in actual dollars? The sheer scale of the figure, $12 trillion, stands in stark contrast to Russia’s current economic realities. Russia’s annual GDP hovers around the $2 trillion mark, making the offer of $12 trillion seem less like a genuine proposal and more like a fantastical negotiation tactic, perhaps a calculated attempt to legitimize what some perceive as the “plunder” of Ukraine and to secure favorable trade terms.
This proposed economic alliance raises profound questions about the underlying motivations and the potential beneficiaries, particularly within the context of American politics. There’s a prevailing sentiment that any such deal, especially if championed by figures like Donald Trump, would be driven by ego and a desire for short-term gratification rather than by national interest or ethical considerations. The idea of re-establishing full economic relations with Russia, even at the cost of Ukraine’s sovereignty, is seen by some as a move that would effectively bail out Vladimir Putin and reward his aggressive actions.
The concept of Russia possessing the liquidity to offer such a substantial sum is met with widespread disbelief. Many commentators point out that Russia’s actual wealth, and certainly its liquid assets, are nowhere near $12 trillion. The proposition feels more like a con artist’s promise, designed to entice with astronomical numbers while lacking any grounding in reality. This echoes past observations where individuals have been perceived as easily bribed, with their greed potentially overriding any sense of principle. The suggestion that Russia might be planning to simply redirect funds owed by major tech companies, rather than having actual capital, further underscores this skepticism.
Delving deeper into the alleged motivations behind such an offer, it’s argued that Russia is playing a long game, leveraging its perceived wealth to influence geopolitical outcomes. The idea of signing a contract, securing investment, and then nationalizing assets or diverting them to allies is presented as a classic “conman’s rule.” It’s believed that figures interested in grand pronouncements and large figures, even without a true understanding of their magnitude, might be susceptible to such propositions. The psychological aspect, the desire to be seen as a dealmaker and to have “big numbers whispered in their ear,” is considered a key factor in understanding the potential reception of such an offer.
The question of Russia’s ability to fulfill such a commitment is paramount. Doubts are repeatedly raised about whether Russia has the financial capacity, even after liquidating all its assets, to meet a $12 trillion obligation. This leads to speculation that the offer might be a form of elaborate manipulation, a promise of future wealth that may never materialize. The comparison to a “pinky swear” or an “IOU” highlights the lack of tangible backing for such a colossal sum, especially when considering the current state of the Russian economy and its ongoing international sanctions.
Furthermore, the underlying strategy behind the alleged Russian offer appears to be a desire to incentivize the US to “look away” from Russia’s actions in Ukraine. It’s suggested that an administration inclined towards resuming trade with Russia and prioritizing a swift end to the conflict, regardless of the concessions required from Ukraine, might be tempted by such a lucrative proposition. The perceived self-interest of certain political figures, who might prioritize claiming credit for ending the war over ensuring Ukraine’s long-term security, is seen as a vulnerability that Russia might seek to exploit.
There’s also a cynical interpretation that Russia is not offering genuine cooperation but rather a proposed split of Ukraine’s resources, contingent on US complicity. This notion of “genocide of Ukraine” being tied to economic benefits suggests a deeply transactional and morally bankrupt proposition. The anticipation that figures with a history of prioritizing personal gain might overlook ethical objections in favor of substantial financial returns is a recurring theme in this analysis.
Ultimately, the report of Russia’s $12 trillion offer to the US, as relayed by Zelenskyy, is viewed with extreme skepticism. The sheer implausibility of the sum, coupled with Russia’s current economic standing, suggests a calculated maneuver rather than a genuine proposal. The underlying narrative points towards a potential political gambit, aimed at exploiting perceived weaknesses and a hunger for grand deals within American leadership, all while potentially masking a more sinister agenda concerning Ukraine. The world waits to see if any such deal, however outlandish, would ever be seriously considered.