Geopolitics of War: Ukraine’s Strategic Importance and the Fight for Control

Throughout its history, Ukraine has found itself at the center of global superpowers’ interests due to its geopolitical significance. The country occupies a strategic location, with Russian oil and gas pipelines passing through Ukraine to supply Europe. This creates an interdependence between Russia and Europe.

From a neo-realist perspective, the U.S. views Ukraine’s geopolitical position as a key factor in its foreign policy strategy. Encouraging Ukraine to join alliances, notably NATO, is seen as a way to undermine Russian influence.

For a long time, the U.S. followed an isolationist policy, which contributed to its sustained global dominance. Both the Biden administration and the previous Trump administration have continued this approach in different ways. Under Biden, this was evident in immigration policies. The Trump administration, on the other hand, withdrew from the Paris Agreement and froze aid to Ukraine.

The current situation in Ukraine highlights the importance of hegemony in the global arena and how a hegemonic state employs exploitative tactics to maintain its status. While Ukraine is a sovereign state, it was American aid that sustained its war efforts against Russia. If Ukraine is unable to defend itself, the loss of territory could become irreversible.

The U.S. has also blocked intelligence sharing that could have helped Ukraine stay afloat. Despite this, American interests in Ukraine persist, as reflected in the ongoing “mineral deal.”

In early 2024, the U.S. Congress blocked an aid package for Ukraine, forcing Ukraine to rely on its own reserves. This allowed Russia to expand its operations and make gains around Kyiv. However, in April 2024, Congress approved military aid, enabling Ukraine to better resist Russian advances.

Given this pattern, further aid blockages are expected. The Trump administration has announced the suspension of military aid to Ukraine. Most weapons were being transported over land via Poland before reaching Ukraine. The move is unsurprising, as some U.S. allies have long called for freezing aid to Ukraine.

Ukraine relies on its allies to fund the war. If U.S. support diminishes, Ukraine will likely turn to its European allies.

From Russia’s perspective, this war is a geostrategic issue. Neo-realist scholar John Mearsheimer argues that Russia could not tolerate a NATO member state on its border. Russia’s sense of insecurity drove its aggressive actions. The U.S. and other NATO members contributed to this insecurity by entertaining the possibility of Ukraine joining the alliance.

Currently, Russia has made territorial gains in Ukraine. However, these strategic moves have also led to NATO’s expansion. Switzerland revoked three hundred years of neutrality to join NATO. Finland, an EU member state, has aligned itself with the West and recently became a NATO member.

Despite Ukraine’s calls for support, it has not yet been admitted into the EU or NATO. Experts suggest that Russian advancements in eastern Ukraine have been underreported. While Russia holds the upper hand, its gains remain limited—President Zelensky is still in power, and Russian forces have not reached Kyiv.

During the Soviet era, Moscow exploited Ukraine’s agricultural sector. Known as the “breadbasket” of the Soviet Union, Ukraine supplied wheat and grain to the nation and its military. This term—”breadbasket”—symbolized the economic drain on Ukraine, culminating in a man-made famine known as the “Holodomor.”

Interdependence theory explains how major powers create situations where peripheral states become dependent on them. After Ukraine gained independence, it received security guarantees from the U.S. in exchange for surrendering the nuclear weapons it had inherited from the Soviet Union. However, Ukraine could not be considered a nuclear state, as the atomic codes remained in Moscow.

History shows how Ukraine has always found itself in competition between major powers. Geographically, it is a buffer state between Russia and Europe. As mentioned previously, it is rich in resources such as petroleum and natural gas.

The pipelines that supply gas to Europe were used as a weapon. Russia had cut off supply during the harsh cold—a tactic used to divert support from the U.S. and Ukraine.

With military aid paused, there has been little pressure on Russia from the EU or the U.S. Meanwhile, the EU has increased military funding, creating the so-called “bomb bank,” which allows member states to borrow money for military purposes. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has described this as an era of rearmament, addressing both short-term needs (Ukraine) and long-term European security concerns.

Ukraine and the EU will likely base their decisions on the status of U.S. military aid. The signing of the mineral deal may encourage the U.S. to resume aid, but it will not bring an end to the war.

Historically, U.S. interventions have often involved the exploitation of natural resources in exchange for weapons or humanitarian aid. Countries financing humanitarian efforts have been accused of exploitative practices, as seen in the ongoing civil war in Sudan, where the UAE was accused of supplying weapons to rebels disguised as humanitarian aid.

Rare earth minerals are located in Russian-occupied regions. Under the mineral deal, control would be divided between Russia and the U.S. Ukraine, in return, seeks security guarantees from the U.S. or its Western allies.

However, the bilateral agreement offers little assurance regarding Ukraine’s security or long-term U.S. military and financial support. The idea is that joint U.S.-Ukraine investment in the nation’s resources will help fund post-war development. Through the mineral deal, investments would be reinvested into Ukraine’s economy, particularly in sectors such as mineral extraction, oil, natural gas, infrastructure, and ports.

The U.S. will maintain a vested interest in Ukraine’s security, stability, and long-term peace, incentivizing continued support. However, security concerns make mining companies hesitant to commit to long-term investments. Even if ratified, the agreement’s benefits, such as increased foreign direct investment, will take years to materialize.

One major challenge is that the U.S. will not see profits from this deal for at least two decades. Additionally, the war has severely damaged essential infrastructure, including energy-intensive mining industries—industries that the U.S. is keen on developing through the mineral deal.

While Ukraine remains a sovereign state, its security, stability, and economic future will continue to be shaped by the shifting priorities of global powers. The mineral deal reflects a broader pattern in international relations, where economic interests and security considerations are deeply intertwined.