Rare earths deal is a very British hustle, a cheap rerun of Winston Churchill’s playbook to ensnare the US in World War 2. Now Starmer’s doing it for WW3.
By Alex Krainer on March 08, 2025
I first wrote about the “rare earths” deal between the US and Ukraine last week, on Tuesday, 25 February and I intended to follow up with this report in a day or two. However, the situation continued to evolve and the rabbit hole presented new discoveries. The affair appears to be a deceitful ploy contrived by the British ruling establishment to lure Donald Trump into providing security for Ukraine and ultimately to go to war against Russia. However, this could prove to be the British Empire’s fatal mistake that will probably accelerate its final collapse.
The undead empire
Yes, the British Empire is still a thing. It’s an undead empire of money, bankers and money laundering; it’s an empire of secret intelligence networks and covert diplomacy; of illicit influence, bribery and corruption; it’s an empire of false narratives and co-opted governments of degenerates, morons and incompetent bureaucrats. It’s a parasite that has infected humanity centuries ago and turned it into a radical perversion of itself.
It’s also a dying empire, wounded and extremely dangerous as it is prepared to set the world on fire to preserve itself. Today this empire has run up against powerful opposition, not only from Russia, China and other sovereign world powers, but now also from the new administration in the US. The unravelling could span years and will present one of the most investable geopolitical themes out there, but more about that toward the end of this report.
The fallout at the White House
Volodymyr Zelensky’s visit to the White House on Friday, 28 February has got to be one of the most extraordinary events in modern history. Zelensky came to Washington, ostensibly to sign the “rare earth” minerals deal with the US, turning over some $500 billion in Ukraine’s resources to American interests. In exchange, Zelensky wanted a security guarantee and continued financial and military support for Ukraine from the United States.
The joint press conference that preceded the signing ceremony was attended by President Trump, Zelensky, vice President JD Vance and the Secretary of State Marco Rubio. It was the most unfriendly exchange between two heads of state in the living memory. Zelensky irritated his hosts by taking a confrontational stance, talking over them during much of the session and contradicting them in front of the reporters. Apparently, the abrasive conduct continued after the press conference, and President Trump ultimately threw Zelensky out of the White House.
Subsequently, the President published a statement about the experience on X:
“We had a very meaningful meeting in the White House today. Much was learned that could never be understood without conversation under such fire and pressure. It’s amazing what comes out through emotion, and I have determined that President Zelenskyy is not ready for Peace if America is involved, because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations. I don’t want advantage, I want PEACE. He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for Peace.”
What’s the deal with Ukrainian rare earths?
So, what was this all about? The saga with Ukraine’s rare earth minerals has turned into a kind of bizarre kabuki theater that doesn’t seem to make any rational sense. The whole diplomatic row escalated over the Trump administration’s demand that Ukraine turn over those resources to the US in compensation for the military and financial aid the US had already provided to Ukraine. The figure in question, according to Trump, could be $350 billion. In last week’s interview with Catherine Herridge, Secretary Marco Rubio explained that Zelensky agreed to this request, only to publicly reject it later:
“We discussed mineral rights with Zelenskyy and said we want to be in a joint venture with you…. We need to be paid back some of the $200 billion in taxpayer money we’ve given you. He said ‘Sure, I need to run it through my legislative process.’ I read two days later he’s saying he rejected the deal. That’s not what happened in that meeting. We’re trying to help these guys. Ukraine doesn’t directly impact the daily lives of Americans, there should be some gratitude here. When you see him accusing the President of disinformation, that’s highly counterproductive. President Trump isn’t going to take that. He’s not going to get gamed. He hopes Zelensky isn’t trying to hustle the United States, that’s not going to be productive here.”
It seems extraordinary that Zelensky, who is desperate for continued US financial and military support would antagonize President Trump in such a brazen manner, which included insulting him and embarrassing his Secretary of State. The explanation may have emerged from a Czech publication AENews, citing leaks from Ukraine’s intelligence. AENews reported that Zelensky is unable to cut the deal with the U.S. because he already signed over Ukraine’s resource wealth to Britain.
The “deal” precedes Trump’s presidency
There’s further relevant background to this saga. Some commentators in the West are trying to insinuate that Trump – because he could – decided to take advantage of Ukraine’s misfortune and simply appropriate $500 billion of its resource wealth. That’s not the story, however. Back in late September 2024, two months before the US elections, Zelensky paid a visit to Trump in New York and proposed the minerals deal. Perhaps he wanted to win Trump over to Ukraine’s cause just in case he won the elections and became the new president. The $500 billion figure came from Zelensky, not from Trump, and I very much doubt that Zelensky came up with the idea himself.
Starmer’s stealth act of piracy
To preempt Trump and secure Ukraine’s resources for Britain, Sir Keir Starmer rushed to make the deal with Zelensky under the framework of the “One Hundred Year Partnership…” The new partnership was signed on 16 January of this year, only four days before Donald Trump’s inauguration. In Article 4, the agreement sets out its purpose: to “strengthen conditions for investment and trade … and cooperate across a range of sectors, including but not limited to transport, infrastructure, and energy to make both their economies more modern, resilient and prosperous.”
According to the intelligence leaks from Ukraine, the agreement includes a secret Appendix, which provides that after the end of hostilities, the UK would gain control of all of Ukraine’s ports, power plants, natural gas deposits, storage facilities and pipelines, titanium deposits and more.
Apparently, Zelensky signed over these resources in exchange for the UK’s commitment to Ukraine’s security, support for her NATO membership and “no less than £3 billion a year,” for “as long as needed to support Ukraine.” Reading through the “One Hundred Year Partnership” agreement makes the allegations made by AENews seem plausible.
Britain’s support isn’t likely charity
To begin with, it is unlikely that the UK has committed to providing such generous support to Ukraine out of pure charity. AENews dismisses this idea, citing Czechoslovakia’s historical experience with the British government. The Czechs fought for Great Britain in World War I.
After the war, however, London charged the Edward Benesh government [1935-1939] for repayment of all the costs of clothing, gear, food, accommodation, and training of Czechoslovak soldiers. They charged them even for the medical bills of wounded soldiers and for the funerals of fallen ones. There’s no reason to believe that the current British government will prove any more charitable with the future governments of Ukraine.
Furthermore, the 100-year partnership agreement is not an “entire agreement.” Customarily, agreements include the “entire agreement” clause which stipulates that contracting parties’ commitments are limited to that which is explicitly spelled out in the signed agreement or specifically listed schedules or addendums. Instead, Article 11 refers to unspecified “further agreements or arrangements as necessary and appropriate to implement this agreement.” That implies that there might exist a secret appendix granting the rights to Ukraine’s resources to British interests.
According to Pravda News report on 17 January, Zelensky corroborated as much himself: in a video message on Telegram, Zelensky referred to the 100-year partnership stating that, “There is also a closed, secret part of this agreement,” which would add to Ukraine’s “resilience and the opportunity to develop.” Another corroboration came from the British government itself, in their 16 January press release about the 100-year partnership. It states that, the agreement “also cements the UK as a preferred partner for Ukraine’s energy sector, critical minerals strategy and green steel production.”
Zelensky is NOT a dictator, okay?
All this might explain why Trump’s statement that Zelensky was a dictator caused such a hysterical reaction in the UK: if Zelensky is not the legitimate representative of Ukraine, then Keir Starmer signed the agreement with a private person, not with a representative of the government of Ukraine. Volodymyr Zelensky’s term in office expired in May 2024 and Ukraine’s constitution is clear in that the President’s term cannot be extended beyond the 5-year term under any circumstances and that presidential elections can’t be delayed. Therefore, the 100-year partnership could be null and void, together with whatever secret clauses or appendices it includes.
The same day when Trump called Zelensky a dictator, the British media collectively sprang to his defence with headlines like, “Shameful Trump Attack Stuns World” (Daily Express), and “Trump Appalls World With ‘Dictator’ Blast at Zelensky” (Daily Mail). Keir Starmer stated that “Zelensky is not a dictator,” and that it was “perfectly reasonable to suspend elections during wartime, as the UK did during World War II.” To boot, Starmer equated Zelensky with Winston Churchill. Even the opposition leader Nigel Farage joined the chorus in defence of Zelensky.
Dispatching Boris Johnson – again
But by this time the situation got a bit out of control; Zelensky had brazenly rejected the agreement proposed by the U.S., embarrassed Secretary of State Marco Rubio and insulted President Trump. In turn, Trump’s public attack at Zelensky brought the question of his legitimacy to the fore. It was time for damage control and once more London dispatched Boris Johnson to Kiev to fix things… He arrived in Keiv for the occasion of the third anniversary of Russia’s Special Military Operation, the 24th of February 2025.
Two things happened almost immediately upon Johnson’s visit: first, Zelensky reversed his prior rejection of the US “rare earths” deal. Second, Ukraine’s parliament 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 grant Zelensky legitimacy as Ukraine’s president.
Johnson aroused suspicion about his actions 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.” In all these appearances, Johnson delivered pretty much the same talking points. In the process however, he also ran his mouth a bit and revealed much about the British role.
Now, if we regard Johnson as a bona fide public official, at the very least he might come across as unconvincing. But if you put your street hustler hat on, things seem 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 minerals deal,” and says what it’s for: “…that 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.”
Notice, Johnson appears to know quite a bit about the agreement’s provisions. He then 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 America’s security guarantee is so important: without it, not a penny can flow westward from Ukraine. As Keir Starmer had conceded, “US backstop is vital.”
The Americans are so very greedy
Asked about whether Zelensky would now reverse his rejection of the draft agreement, Johnson plays dumb:
“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…”
Notice, Johnson hopes, he doesn’t really know, “various drafts have been floating around, ” and so on. But then in the very same sentence he displays keen knowledge of specific provisions of the deal that’s supposed to be signed between Ukraine and the US. Finally, Johnson takes a contemptuous jab at the designated 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 lend-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 lend-lease in 2006… So, you know, America has a history of demanding a price for its support.”
It’s all very unfortunate, you see, because the Americans are so unscrupulous and greedy. Poor Ukrainians should just 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.”
And there you have it. It would appear that the British have already secured the lion’s share of Ukraine’s wealth, but it can’t protect it without the Americans doing the dirty work and all the heavy lifting. To get the Americans into the game, the British presented bait in the shape of the “rare earth minerals” deal to be implemented through some future fund from which the US will receive a portion of the proceeds. It is likely that this bait was contrived already in September of last year, when Zelensky first offered the deal to Trump.
Obviously, the arrangement has a massive downside for the United States: in addition to the cost in blood and treasure of providing security, there would also be the likelihood of a nuclear war with Russia. But the very existence of those rare earths in Ukraine is in doubt. Meanwhile, British interests would snatch most of the loot. Per trade practices that the British have perfected over the centuries, this act of piracy would be so well disguised through secret agreements with designated Ukrainian trustees, corrupt government officials, endless strings of offshore shell companies and the money laundering services from British and European banks, that few would even suspect that British interests were involved at all.
I believe that the whole episode reveals the contemptuous attitude towards the United States among the British ruling circles. They really seem to regard it, as Winston Churchill put it, as “American brawn for British brains.” As I’d suspected for many years now, they see the “special relationship” as the Master-Blaster combo from the film Mad Max III: a decrepit, sinister dwarf directing the dumb, muscular giant. But the giant has awakened now and got back to its senses. The new government in Washington is unlike the old one and won’t easily be conned into the rotten deal.
The darker agenda
However, the plunder of Ukraine’s wealth isn’t the only dimension of today’s geopolitics. A far more sinister agenda is at play and Boris Johnson foreshadowed it in a way in stating that, ” … 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 …”
Johnson insinuated that the US forced a rotten deal on Britain and took advantage in her hour of need. But that’s a gross distortion of what really happened. As the British historian David Irving explained in one of his lectures on World War II, it was the British, in fact, who offered chunks of their territories to nudge the US into joining World War II on Britain’s side:
“Churchill finally hit on the idea in the middle of 1940, of buying from the United States 50 World War I destroyers which were completely useless, and exchanging them, in fact for valuable pieces of British Empire real estate. He gave to the United States bits of the Caribbean islands that were our colonies, he gave bits of Newfoundland and bits of British Guiana in return for 50 destroyers that were so useless, in fact, that not one saw action in World War II … This was one of the methods that Churchill was using in an attempt to drag the United States closer and closer to the brink of war. Another method that he used was far more cynical. As he said to Ambassador Kennedy …, ‘You watch: when Adolf Hitler begins bombing London and bombing towns in Britain like Boston and Lincoln, towns with their counterparts in the United States, you Americans will have to come in, won’t you? You can’t just stand aside and watch us suffering. But he knew … that Hitler had given orders that no British town was to be bombed. London was completely embargoed. The German Air Force was allowed to bomb ports and harbors and dockyards, but not towns as such. And … on August the 25th, 1940, Churchill gave the order to the British Air Force to go and bomb Berlin. Although the Chief of the Bomber Command and the Chief of Staff of the British Air Force warned him that if we bomb Berlin, Hitler may very well lift the embargo on bombing British towns. And Churchill just twinkled, because it was what he wanted, of course. At 9:15 that morning, he telephoned, personally, the Bomber Command himself, to order the bombing of Berlin – 100 bombers to go and bomb Berlin. And they went out and bombed Berlin that night, and Hitler still didn’t move. [Churchill] ordered another raid on Berlin and so it went on for the next seven or ten days until finally on September the 4th Hitler lost his patience and made that famous speech in the Sports Palace in Berlin which he said, ‘this madman has bombed Berlin now seven times. If he bombs Berlin once more, then I shall not only just attack their towns, I shall wipe them out.’ … A very famous speech. Of course, German schoolchildren are now told about the Hitler speech, they’re not told what went first. They’re not told how it came about. Churchill sent out deliberately to provoke the bombing of his own capital. And on the following day, Churchill ordered Berlin bombed again.”
The same playbook?
What Irving described was the scheming of the British government to draw the United States into war on its side. Keir Starmer appears to be following the same playbook: the minerals deal is the hook – the bribe to open the Americans to the possibility of committing to the British agenda. His recent statements corroborate this further: his government is doubling down on support for Ukraine.
Even though the British military is no match for the Russians, the idea, as Starmer explained, is to show the Americans that Britain is serious. Those troops will be deliberately put in harm’s way as a tripwire to trigger further escalation as their government works to cobble up a “coalition of the willing” to pile in. In addition, they’re redoubling public relations efforts to portray Zelensky as a heroic freedom fighter. With all these elements in place, it is not difficult to imagine scenarios that could lead to a serious escalation and set the United States on an irreversible collision course against Russia.
What’s the reason for Britain’s deranged Russophobia
What could be the reason behind the British establishment’s deranged obsession with vanquishing and dismembering Russia and why do they seem perfectly willing to set the world on fire to achieve that goal? I believe that the answer lies in her natural resources wealth, which dwarfs that of Ukraine. Britain, whose finances are in a catastrophic state, is desperate for fresh collateral to fuel a major new credit cycle needed to refloat its financial system.
Without Ukraine’s and Russia’s resources, all they have are the printing presses which will turn Britain’s stagflation into a hyperinflation and the final collapse of their empire. In fact, that’s almost certainly the most likely outcome of current events. The world has changed since Churchill contrived his own cunning plan. Starmer’s and Johnson’s hustle is almost transparent. Trying it on Donald Trump could turn out to be the undead British Empire’s fatal mistake.
