Trump's Ukraine Deal: WSJ Claims It Was Only Ever About Massive Profits

The world's largest war since 1945 is allegedly being viewed by some of the most influential people in America not as a humanitarian or geopolitical tragedy, but as a colossal business opportunity. This cynical premise is the core of a recent, politically explosive report from The Wall Street Journal.

The publication's report, published over the weekend, revealed a supposed 'peace plan' for Ukraine that reads less like diplomacy and more like a hostile corporate takeover, with figures in President Donald Trump's inner circle allegedly preparing to pocket massive profits.

A Profit-Led Channel to Moscow

The Journal's reporting paints a vivid picture of a direct, profit-led channel of communication between Moscow and the President's close associates, completely bypassing Washington's established national security apparatus.

According to Western security officials cited in the report, this was the culmination of a clear Kremlin strategy, 'hatched before Trump's inauguration', designed to recast Russia in the eyes of the administration. Instead of being viewed as a military threat or an antagonistic power, Moscow aimed to be seen as 'a land of bountiful opportunity'. This reframing, based on the promise of immense wealth, is what makes foreign-policy veterans deeply uneasy.

The paper continues to detail the extraordinary stakes, writing that 'By dangling multibillion-dollar rare-earth and energy deals, Moscow could reshape the economic map of Europe—while driving a wedge between America and its traditional allies'. This isn't just about ending the fighting; it's about a radical restructuring of the global energy and resource supply chain, designed to favour a Washington-Moscow axis while deliberately sidelining Europe.

Further reporting on the proposed '28-point framework' for peace, reportedly influenced by Kremlin envoys, reveals just how deep the financial integration goes. Central to the alleged plan is the treatment of the $300 billion (£240 billion) in frozen Russian central bank assets. While a portion would go to Ukraine's reconstruction, the rest—hundreds of billions—would be invested in a joint US-Russia vehicle for cooperative projects. The article mentions the deals included 'multibillion-dollar rare-earth and energy deals', which appears to align perfectly with the kind of 'cooperative projects' that would serve as the economic foundation of this new alignment.

Explosive Reaction to 'Peace for Profit' Allegations

The online reaction to The Wall Street Journal's report was explosive. The claims immediately validated the long-standing suspicions of those who have closely analysed the Trump administration's engagement with Russia.

Former speechwriter to President George W Bush, David Frum, denounced the findings, characterising them as 'a devastating report on the real Trump-Russia deal: betray Ukraine in exchange for privileged business benefits for Trump insiders'.

This sentiment was loudly echoed by Garry Kasparov, the longtime pro-democracy activist and fierce Putin critic, who said: 'As I said in my Halifax speech a few days before this damning WSJ report, this has always been personal business for Trump, not national interest'.

Kasparov pressed the point further, arguing that observers consistently overcomplicate the motivations behind the actions of certain powerful men. 'It's money. It's always money. They're crooks. With immense power, but still crooks. Don't overcomplicate things.'

This financial cynicism is the bedrock of the entire controversy. Not only would the peace framework demand sweeping territorial concessions from Kyiv, effectively locking millions of Ukrainian citizens into annexed territories, but it also contained a devastating amnesty clause. This provision, Point 26, would offer full legal immunity to all parties involved in the war, meaning horrific crimes like torture, executions, and the deportation of over 20,000 Ukrainian children would remain unpunished.

Bloomberg Opinion's Ronald Brownstein summed up the view of many in the media: 'If the betting markets did Pulitzer odds, this remarkably reported [WSJ] piece would be a comet'. The Journal's report doesn't just raise eyebrows, it detonates them. If the details are accurate, it suggests that a foreign-policy stance is being driven entirely by the pursuit of eye-watering business deals and profit-sharing schemes, even if that means abandoning allies and sacrificing Ukraine's sovereignty in the cold.