Modern Resource Wars in Dependency Theory: The Ukrainian Dimension
As early as 2020, an analysis of global trends led experts to a grim conclusion: future world wars will escalate exponentially and will occur precisely in those regions of the world where reserves of oil, drinking water, minerals, and agricultural land are concentrated. Moreover, they will unfold over control of transcontinental transport routes.
Already today, the struggle for the “lithium triangle” – Bolivia, Argentina, and Chile – has sharply intensified in South America. In Africa, several countries are reviewing concessions for cobalt and copper mining (Congo and Zambia), while in Asia, tensions are rising over rare metals: in particular, Vietnam has estimated newly discovered reserves at more than 22 million tons. China has turned rare earth elements into a powerful geo-economic weapon. Beijing is not merely winning the “rare earth race”; it is a monopolist in this sector. Washington is determined to change this status quo of the Celestial Kingdom at any cost.
The reasons for these developments are simple: humanity needs ever-increasing amounts of energy, water, and food for its survival and development, and these must be delivered by certain means. The growing shortage of these resources will intensify the struggle for them. In this sense, wars should be viewed as a means of achieving such goals. By and large, space exploration programs and technological leadership in the conquest of the Moon or Mars have precisely this goal.
It is not difficult to predict that wars will break out between the world’s powerful nations on the territory of countries that nature has “blessed” with such opportunities and resources. The goal: to establish control over them.
If we look at today’s world through this lens, we will see that wars are instigated by powerful nations and waged on the territory of weaker but resource-rich countries. Many researchers already refer to natural resources as a blessing for some countries and a curse for others. The “resource curse” or “paradox of abundance” turns out to be an objective phenomenon, stemming from the fact that countries possessing significant natural resources are, as a rule, less economically developed than countries with small reserves or none at all.
Few have paid attention to the so-called “Dependency Theory” [1], and they should. It posits that natural resources, as a global asset, must flow from the poor and underdeveloped countries that possess them to wealthy nations. Based on this theory, hybrid weapons are necessary to ensure this “flow”, and if they prove ineffective, military force of coercion is required.
Today’s world is predominantly dependent on imports and exports. The map not only illustrates this dependency but also highlights critical indicators for agricultural products, energy resources, minerals, ores, and metals. Recently, quantum and other modern technologies, microelectronics, and artificial intelligence have been added to this list.
This is precisely why we see the USA targeting the mineral extraction hubs on which the entire world depends – this is both the root cause and the consequence of all financial and economic crises on the planet. Crises, in turn, lead to a redistribution of spheres of influence. In this sense, establishing control over energy resources aims not only at owning the resources but also at monopolizing the excess profits from their future sale.
If we analyze the root causes of the USA’s special operation in Venezuela, as well as the war in the Middle East, we can see that they are based not at all on “threats to the USA’s national security”, but rather the issue of establishing control over the world’s largest proven oil reserves and the logistics that are crucial for the transportation and sale of hydrocarbons. At the same time, of course, there is a second goal: shifting geopolitical influence and displacing the presence of other stakeholders in these regions, first of all China and Russia.
“We will not allow Iran to make money by selling oil to whoever they like, or by refusing to sell to whoever they don’t like. It’s all or nothing”, Donald Trump told Fox News. “I think they’ll give us everything we want. I don’t want 90%, I don’t want 95%, I want everything”, he confirmed.
The next temporarily postponed war against Cuba falls into this very category. Herein lies the answer to a related question: why can’t the USA declare victory in the wars of the 21st century? Because its true goals are entirely different from those officially stated.
Despite all the White House’s bluster, “peacemaker” Donald Trump has not ended a single one of the eight wars, has failed to stop Russia’s war against Ukraine, and on the contrary: in a manner questionable from the perspective of international law, he “dealt with” the regime in Venezuela, unleashed a war in the Middle East, and determined Cuba as the next target. Regarding the latter: Donald Trump has repeatedly and openly voiced the idea of “annexing the island”, and his administration calls the leaders in Havana a “threat to the USA’s national security”. “Cuba is finished,” Donald Trump said while speaking with journalists, “they have a bad regime, very bad and corrupt leadership”. Parallels with Venezuela inevitably come to mind. As in previous cases, this is about the USA’s national interest in establishing control over oil sales, for which a change in the ruling regime is a necessary condition.
President of the small island nation Miguel Díaz-Canel has told NBC that he will not resign under pressure from the United States: “We are a free and sovereign state; we have self-determination and independence, and we do not bow to the will of the United States. The idea that revolutionaries would surrender and resign is not part of our vocabulary,” he assured. Meanwhile, the USA is preparing to carry out a special operation in the country, as the end justifies the means.
A new “Caribbean crisis” is unfolding at an exponential rate. Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia Sergey Ryabkov has already visited Cuba, and during a meeting with Díaz-Canel, he assured that Cuba is one of the priorities of Russian foreign policy. According to the diplomat, Russia has no plans to withdraw from the Western Hemisphere.
Such is the “new geopolitics” as practiced by today’s global players. This strategy is not new and stems from Woodrow Wilson’s “America First”, which Donald Trump adopted in 2016. The creation in the 21st century of a system of dependencies of less developed countries on more powerful ones is, in facte, a continuation of colonialism through economic, political, and cultural coercion. Its main goals are the exploitation of natural and human resources, the acquisition of cheap labor, control over markets, and strategic dominance in the world.
For these reasons, the root cause of modern wars waged by the United States or Russia is, in fact, the establishment by force of a system of dependencies and control over resources.
But the Trump team has its own “know-how”: the so-called “improvised wars”. These have replaced deeply thought-out, meticulously prepared, and planned operations. As we have seen time and again, the White House chief quickly launches a military adventure and just as suddenly abandons it, immediately declaring himself the “victor”. He does this even when the situation unfolds contrary to his plan, when everyone is a witness to Trump’s defeat.
That would be fine, but it is becoming increasingly clear that such American policy is proving to be a failure even for the domestic audience: the US president is leading America into a strategic dead end, with economic, political, and reputational losses for the United States. More and more American experts and even members of Congress are noting that the USA’s status as the world’s policeman has been significantly shaken. And now the question for the US Department of State [2]: how long are they willing to stand by and watch this unfold?
The Ukrainian Dimension
Ukraine is not an isolated case or an exception in modern wars, the aim of which is for certain leading powers to establish control, dependencies, and influence. The reason for this lies in the country’s relative national weakness, but also in its rich natural resources and geographical location.
According to Forbes, the total value of Ukraine’s mineral resources is estimated at $14.8 trillion. Ukraine possesses significant quantities of rare-earth metals used, in particular, in military manufacturing (dysprosium, praseodymium, scandium, and other lanthanides). These metals are indispensable in the composition of powerful magnets used in modern energy, electronics, and combat systems: missiles, aircraft engines, air defense systems, and more. Surprisingly, over 70% of the reserves are concentrated in three regions: Donetsk, Luhansk, and Dnipropetrovsk. In addition to these, promising deposits are also located in Kirovohrad and Kherson regions.
Source: https://www.rbc.ua/rus/news/navishcho-ssha-ridkozemelni-metali-ta-chi-1740517339.html
Could this be where the real interests of the warring parties lie? We should pay close attention to the conclusions of Forbes experts that Ukraine’s natural resources have become a major cause of Russia’s military aggression. One of the key aims is identified as taking control of these resources and preventing the implementation in Ukraine of large-scale international projects related to the mineral resource base, which could compete with Russian companies. On June 9, 2024, in an interview with the American television network CBS News, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham expressed concern that “Ukraine has significant reserves of critical minerals, estimated at $10–12 trillion, which Russia seeks to seize and share with China.”
Thus, the rare earth resources that Ukrainian soil is rich in have also become a key component in the fierce global struggle for control over deposits. Viewing the Russian war through this lens, it becomes clear why our northeastern neighbor is not interested in cities and people (obviously, they are being destroyed everywhere) – but rather in Ukrainian territory with its natural resources, mineral deposits, and geographical location.
It is precisely in the context of taking control of our natural resources that we should view the framework bilateral Agreement on the Establishment of Rules and Conditions for the Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, signed on February 28, 2025, between the governments of the United States and Ukraine. On May 8 of that year, the Agreement was ratified by the Ukrainian Parliament, but thanks to a fortunate turn of events, it remained unimplemented following a public dispute at the White House between Trump, Vance, and Zelenskyy. It should be noted, however, that we never received any “security guarantees” in exchange for granting access to mineral resources.
I can’t shake the feeling that Trump’s America is a nominal partner, but by no means an ally of Ukraine. Most likely, we are viewed across the ocean as a pawn in a grand geopolitical game. It is worth noting just one detail that seems inconspicuous at first glance: while Russia is waging an open war against Ukraine and a covert one against Europe, threatening to dismantle international organizations and the like, the USA is debating which sectors of Ukraine’s economy to enter, what and where to extract, how to supply, and where to invest. This is about who seeks to play a decisive role in our economy and security architecture, and to define our place and role in the world.
The first three years of the large-scale war against Ukraine, launched by the Russian Federation with the aim of conquest, were extremely difficult. At times, it seemed that we would not be able to withstand the aggressor’s invasion without the consolidation of the West and the support of our partners. The question even arose of the price the Ukrainian state would have to pay to preserve its sovereignty and independence. And in this “price list”, drawn up by both sides, our territories, rich in rare-earth deposits, clearly featured prominently [3]. It is worth recalling here the apt words of Prime Minister of Canada Mark Carney, spoken at the Davos Economic Forum on January 20, 2026: “Middle powers must act together, because if we are not at the table, we are on the menu” [4].
We have held our ground, though we remain “on the menu”. Now in its fifth year, the war has not only allowed Ukraine to maintain its strategic resilience but also enabled it to deliver increasingly devastating blows to Russia’s energy sector, economy, and logistics deep within the aggressor nation’s rear. We have succeeded in building a military-industrial complex and developing modern, effective technologies, as well as weapons and military equipment, for which there are long lines of buyers on global markets. The war is gradually shifting back to the territory from which it originated. This is something we could only have dreamed of just 3–4 years ago. The situation has changed dramatically, and today it can be succinctly described as a fundamental turning point in the war, as well as the beginning of the end for Russia.
Putin’s regime is failing to achieve its goals, cannot offer anything new, and continues to finance a costly war of aggression, devouring its own future. Russia is exhausting itself and beginning to “hit a ceiling” – not only militarily but also in terms of resources; the country is trading its statehood for square kilometers of scorched earth, without a strategic plan to extricate itself from the situation. The chess game is strategically lost, and the logic of this process is ruthless.
But this is no time to relax or forget that today’s war is not just about missiles, drones, planes, and shells. A struggle is underway for Ukraine’s place in the sun in the global world – for meaning, decisions, development, and the future. Let us not forget: we are still “on the menu”, and that means the threat has not been eliminated.
We must continue to diligently do our homework, build up our military capabilities, become economically strong and resource-rich, and not outsource matters of national security. To have a seat at the table among the powerful, we must reject the false narrative that everyone owes us a debt because we are defending Europe and the entire world from imperial tyranny.
Moreover, we must not ask for “security guarantees” or trade them for our mineral resources and key assets, which, as is well known, are national treasures. Let us remember Mikhail Bulgakov’s advice from his famous novel “The Master and Margarita”: “Never ask for anything… they will offer it themselves, and they will give you everything.”
We must always assess the situation comprehensively and strategically, based on our national interests. It is precisely from these positions that we should build new partnerships and allied relations, at least on a regional level. The time has come to think first and foremost about ourselves and our future, to avoid making our own mistakes, and the enemy will lose on its own.
Yurii Romaniuk,
expert in political and security issues,
Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences
Volodymyr Palyvoda,
expert in international relations
Notes:
[1] Dependency theory is a general term for a body of sociological theories that argue that resources flow from the periphery of poor and underdeveloped countries to the centers of rich countries, and that this flow of resources further enriches the rich countries. The main thesis of dependency theory is that the reason for the enrichment of rich countries and the impoverishment of poor ones lies in how exactly poor countries are integrated into the global system.
[2] From the English “deep state” – a political science concept according to which there exists in the United States a coordinated group or groups of unelected government officials who nonetheless influence public policy despite the democratically elected leadership.
[3] Several Ukrainian rare-earth metal deposits are currently under Russian occupation. In particular, at least three rare-earth mineral deposits, as well as the Shevchenkivske lithium deposit, have come under Russian control. Overall, the occupation covers a significant portion of Ukraine’s resources, including approximately 48% of the country’s total mineral reserves.
[4] This phrase meant that medium-sized countries must unite to protect their interests, otherwise they will become subject to manipulation by major powers.
