Britain's Ukraine Hustle

Key Markets report for Monday, 3 March 2025

As the events around Ukraine unfold and the panic in the ranks of NATO and European political classes escalates, the atenda pursued aggressively by the British is coming to light and its outlines are now almost obvious. If we analyze the events within a framework of foreign relations, diplomacy and international laws, it might seem that this is a conflict between Western democracies and Russian autocracy; that it's about helping Ukraine defend its freedom and sovereignty, and that all the busywork of Western statesmen (or women) and diplomats is about protecting Ukraine and providing credible security guarantees in the face of Russian aggression. This has not been hard to digest, it's the core narrative served up by Western mainstream media 24/7 for years now.

The narrative makes no sense

But within that framework of analysis, so much about this story doesn't make sense. How is Ukraine free and sovereign when it's completely dependent on Western financial and military aid? How is it a democracy when Zelensky can ban any political party by decree, when Ukrainian men are being abducted in their thousands and thrown into the trenches on the Eastern front?

How are the war's main cheerleaders democracies when they rig, cancel or otherwise sabotage elections any time their populations choose the wrong candidates? And how are all these liberal democracies so bent on waging war and sacrificing Ukrainians, that they flatly refuse any negotiations with Russia?

It’s a basic hustle

On the other hand, if we analyze the situation with a street hustler mindset, things begin to make sense. In Tuesday's TrendCompass report I suggested that the whole "rare earths deal" between Ukraine and the US is a ruse, and that Zelensky can't sign it because he already committed Ukraine's resources to British interests. So far, that hypothesis has aged well over the decades that passed since last week. Agent Zelensky travelled to Washington on Friday where he antagonized his hosts and perhaps made sure that no deal was signed while the blame could be cast on Trump.

It would appear that Zelensky was coached for the role by Obama's foreign policy neocon dream team (Susan Rice, Victoria Nuland, Antony Blinken and Alexander Vindman). But the man who really let the cat out of the bag was the energizer bunny of warmaking, former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. The man has an unrivalled track record of appearing wherever rivers of blood flow.

Johnson travelled to Kiev on the 3rd anniversary of Russia's "unprovoked," brutal aggression on Ukraine and two things happened almost immediately: first, Zelensky reversed his prior rejection of the US "rare earths" deal and second, Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada passed the resolution extending Mr. Zelensky's presidential mandate. That was the lawmakers' second vote on the same resolution: the first time they voted wrong and failed to give democratic legitimacy to Zelensky.

Time to win?

Of course, correlation (BoJo's presence in Kiev) may not indicate causation between these events, but Johnson's own loose lips aroused suspicion in several interviews he gave from Kiev and also from his statements at the Yalta European Strategy forum's "special gathering," held on 24 February under the slogan, "Three Years - Time to Win." BoJo delivered pretty much the same talking points in all these appearances, but he also revealed much about the British role.

Again, if you take him for a bona fide public official, you might be perplexed or, at the very least, unconvinced. But if you put your street hustler hat on, things are almost obvious: if anyone tried to hustle you in this way, you'd likely see it coming from miles away. In an early morning interview from Kiev with "Good Morning Britain," Johnson refers to the "rare earth deal," and says what it's for: it "commits the US not only to future financing of Ukraine but also to a free, sovereign, and secure Ukraine under Donald Trump and that is not to be sneezed at. That's a very, very important commitment and also, as it happens, it spells out in the agreement that Russia is the aggressor in this war." (note, he seems to know the agreement's provisions)

Then he pretends that this is some really tough deal that confers great benefits to the greedy Americans: "Now, people will say, oh, this deal is extortionate for Ukraine and America is being too rapacious but not a penny can flow from this investment fund that is going to be set up unless you have a free, sovereign and secure Ukraine." This last statement also makes it obvious why the American security guarantees and "future funding of Ukraine," are so important.

The Americans are so very greedy

Asked about whether Zelensky would now reverse his rejection of the draft agreement presented to him by Scott Bessent and discussed by the State Secretary Rubio, Johnson plays coy: "It's my hope that they will, I can't be absolutely sure that that is going to happen - various drafts have been floating around over the last few days. The only point that I'm trying to make is that when you look at this deal, when you look at what it says in black and white about the American commitment to Ukraine, to the freedom, sovereignty, and security of Ukraine, when you look at what it envisages for the long term for Ukraine, that's ... economic integration with the West, a big partnership with the most powerful economy in the world, that's positive for a country, bla, bla, bla..."

Notice: Johnson hopes, he doesn't really know, "various drafts have been floating around, etc." but then in the very same sentence he reveals that he knows an awful lot about the specific provisions of the deal that's supposed to be signed. Finally, Johnson takes the typical, contemptuous jab at the targeted dupe of the whole hustle, the United States:

" ... it is a good deal for the United States as well, but then don't forget what we had to face in 1940-41 with the land lease deal - we had to give up a huge amount - bases in the Caribbean, in Newfoundland, Bermuda and so on, we got a lot of rust bucket destroyers in exchange and ... the UK taxpayer stopped paying back the United States for land lease in 2006... So, you know, America has a history of demanding a price for its support." It's very unfortunate: Americans, you see, are so very unscrupulous and greedy. The Ukrainians should accept that the Americans will shear them good and proper but hey, always look on the bright side of life, says BoJo: "from where I sit today, I think that the price for Ukraine is reasonable."

My own suspicion is that the British have already secured their claim on Ukraine's wealth. As per Ukrainian intelligence leak I discussed last week, they've done so under the One Hundred Year Partnership agreement which Keir Starmer signed with Zelensky on 16 January this year. The agreement entails a secret appendix which grants the control over Ukraine's ports, power plants, natural gas deposits, storage facilities and pipelines, titanium deposits and who knows what else, to British interests.

The United States is being hustled to provide funding and security guarantees for a "rare earth minerals" deal implemented through some future fund through which they will receive a part of the proceeds. The arrangement however, has a massive downside for the Americans: in addition to the cost of providing security, there's also the risk of war with Russia - possibly nuclear war. The upside are the "rare earths" whose very existence in Ukraine is in doubt.

Meanwhile, British interests, who are otherwise all altruism and selfless generosity, would help themselves to the best part of the loot. Per practices that the British have perfected over the centuries, this act of piracy would be so well disguised via secret agreements with designated trustees and endless strings of offshore shell companies, that few would even suspect that British interests were involved at all.

Since last week I found two further indications that the secret appendix to the 100-year partnership does, indeed exist. One was a statement by Zelensky, saying exactly that (via Ukrainska Pravda), and the other is a line in British government's press release about the partnership: "[The 100-year partnership agreement] also cements the UK as a preferred partner for Ukraine’s energy sector, critical minerals strategy and green steel production." Of course, there's no mention about any of that in the publicly available part of the agreement, so it must be spelled out elsewhere.

The rare earths dangled in front of Donald Trump, by comparison, are only a cheap lure to maneuver the United States into doing all the heavy lifting in Ukraine. Our next question is this: what are the chances that Donald Trump, of all people, won't recognize the hustle for what it is? If Kamala Harris were in the White House, a dinner with Chuck the king might be sufficient to dazzle her into agreeing to whatever Starmer or Zelensky put in front of her.

Underestimating Trump and trying to swindle him in such a transparent 3-card monte could prove the Brit's most costly mistake. They are desperate to secure Ukraine's wealth for collateral to refloat their financial system, which is in a catastrophic state. Without it, all they have are the printing presses which will turn Britain's stagflation into a hyperinflation. This could well prove to be one of the most investable themes out there and that certainly applies to European securities and the euro as much as they apply to the British ones.

To learn more about TrendCompass reports please check our main TrendCompass web page. We encourage you to also have a read through our TrendCompass User Manual page.

Trading signals for Key Markets, 3 March 2025

With Friday’s closing prices we have the following signals: