This is timely, because with the Trump election, it really looks like the Ukraine war is ramping down as Russia closes in on full control of the breakaway regions, and that would shift things there to rebuilding for both sides. So not only have the OCGFC made billions through the military industrial complex, but the big agriculture companies are going to gobble up farmland while their construction and related corporations get in on the action. Previous to the 2014 color revolution where the pro-Russian government was ousted by a CIA operation using NGOs, there were limits on foreign ownership of farmland. But next up on the war front is China, and China has been preparing for it by building up their military and navy. Hard to tell if it will be a cold war or active conflict, but there is a lot of money to be made for China and the OCGFC with a military build up. And China is in on it as they’ve been very involved with hosting WEF events and working with the OCGFC directly. It’s basically theater, and they don’t care about death and destruction when they profit from so mightily.
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2024/11/16/who-really-profits-from-the-ukraine-war/
Few people understand what the war in Ukraine means for big business—namely, opportunity. It’s not just the weapons and reconstruction contracts. Ukraine’s vast agricultural lands—among the most fertile in the world—are up for grabs, and American companies like BlackRock are at the front of the line. RFK Jr. Deftly and clearly explains.
JP Morgan and BlackRock — From Financiers of Destruction to Half-Trillion Dollar ‘Heroes’ of Reconstruction – The Hypocrisy of Reconstruction of Ukraine by the Same Corporations that Profited from the War
JP Morgan and BlackRock, along with consultancy McKinsey & Company, are collaborating with the Ukrainian government to establish a reconstruction fund. The objective of this fund is to attract significant investments for the country’s reconstruction, which could cost between $400 billion and $1 trillion, depending on estimates. This fund, known as the Fund for the Development of Ukraine, will use a “blended finance” approach to mobilize both public and private capital, targeting priority sectors such as infrastructure, climate and agriculture.
BlackRock and JP Morgan offered their services pro bono to manage this fund, leveraging their expertise in financial markets and debt management. The intention is that this fund can begin to operate fully once the war ends, although planning is already underway and has been discussed at recent international conferences.
The recent partnership between JP Morgan, BlackRock and McKinsey & Company to rebuild Ukraine highlights the bitter irony of the current geopolitical situation. In a deal that aims to raise hundreds of billions of dollars for the reconstruction of war-torn Ukraine, these American financial giants now position themselves as the economic saviors of a country whose destruction, in part, was facilitated by policies and actions in financial markets that they themselves dominated and shaped.
The United States, through its foreign policies and interventions, has a long history of fomenting instability in various regions of the world. In the case of Ukraine, the situation is no different. From the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis, American interests were clear: to weaken Russia and expand the Western sphere of influence. The irony becomes even more evident when we consider that many of the same financial institutions now being called upon to rebuild Ukraine are those that have profited immensely from armed conflicts and the destabilization of global markets.
JP Morgan and BlackRock are entities deeply rooted in the global financial system, and both have a history of financing military industries and governments that perpetuate conflict. JP Morgan, for example, has a long history of involvement in financing wars and authoritarian regimes around the world. BlackRock, in turn, as the largest asset manager in the world, has stakes in practically all major defense companies, which profit directly from the manufacture of weapons used in conflicts such as Ukraine.
This dichotomy is alarming: the same institutions that financed destruction are now celebrated as leaders of reconstruction. The “fund of reconstruction” proposed for Ukraine is not just a humanitarian effort; it is also a strategic maneuver to ensure that Western capital has control over the country’s future assets and economic infrastructure. The reconstruction of Ukraine, costing up to a trillion dollars, presents a lucrative opportunity for these companies, which are now seen as saviors.
Furthermore, McKinsey & Company’s presence on the project adds an additional layer of criticism, as the consulting firm has frequently been accused of unethical practices and collusion with corrupt regimes. McKinsey’s lack of transparency and controversial practices call into question the integrity of the reconstruction process.