Operation Foreclosure: Russia Sets the Borders, US Takes the Mines, EU Pays the Welfare

Click to see the full-size image

The Abu Dhabi track ended without a peace treaty — and that was the point. The talks wrapped up like a bankruptcy hearing: no joint statements, no celebratory press conference, just controlled silence. Behind closed doors, the emerging outline is a receivership plan valued at roughly $500 billion: Russia sets the map on the ground, the United States locks in the extractive upside, the European Union absorbs the social bill, and Ukraine is pushed to trade sovereignty for solvency.

Abu Dhabi: Western auditors face the GRU

The closed-door consultations on Ukraine held in Abu Dhabi on Jan. 23–24 ended without any final communiqué. That absence spoke louder than the usual scripted talking points. Unlike the stage-managed “peace summits” of recent years, this meeting had a hard, technical tone — less diplomacy, more compliance and enforcement.

Hosted by UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the trilateral talks in Abu Dhabi brought together Russian and Ukrainian delegations on January 23–24. The high-level mediation effort, flanked by US and UAE flags, focused on security guarantees and de-escalation terms in a strictly closed-door format.

A grim-faced Kyrylo Budanov at the negotiating table. For the architect of Ukraine’s covert operations, the Abu Dhabi round was a reckoning: instead of planning new strikes, the GUR chief had to sit and listen to the terms of their cessation.

In the corridors, insiders described a setup that looked like a creditors’ committee sizing up a distressed asset. But the clearest signal came from Moscow’s choice of envoy. Russia’s negotiating group was led not by a career Foreign Ministry diplomat and not by a civilian political operator, but by Admiral Igor Kostyukov, the head of the Main Directorate of the General Staff — Russia’s military intelligence chief (GRU).

Adm. Igor Kostyukov, Russia’s GRU Chief, at the Abu Dhabi talks. His presence revives an old Russian tradition: when Moscow seals a victory, it sends military intelligence to dictate terms, not diplomats to debate them. History remembers:
1814, Paris: Col. Mikhail Orlov, a military intelligence officer, drafted and signed the capitulation of Paris, sparing the city from destruction.
1945, Tokyo Bay: GRU officer Lt. Gen. Kuzma Derevyanko signed Japan’s surrender on the USS Missouri.
1945, Berlin: GRU Maj. Gen. Ivan Susloparov signed the first German surrender in Reims.
Kostyukov’s role today is the same: to lock in military realities and enforce non-negotiable terms.

Putting the intelligence boss at the table erased any expectation of a theatrical “political bargain” from Kiev. It also changed the status of the meeting. Kostyukov’s presence signaled that Moscow framed these talks through military-strategic security — not public diplomacy. You don’t haggle over slogans or humanitarian optics with the GRU chief; you talk verification, force posture, the geometry of demilitarized zones, the dismantling of NATO-linked intelligence infrastructure, and the technical terms that effectively codify defeat. Across from Western financiers who came to count money sat Russian officers who came to lock in battlefield reality.

The partition model: Washington takes the upside, Brussels takes the wreckage

Against that backdrop, the near-simultaneous leak via Politico of an 18-page European Commission “reconstruction” roadmap reads less like a recovery plan and more like an attempt to formalize economic capitulation under the branding of “rebuilding.”

Leak of the Week: Politico exposes the West’s exit strategy. The “prosperity plan” is less about rebuilding and more about a buyout — offering cash in exchange for accepting the new geopolitical reality.

The exposed framework resembles a classic distressed-asset restructuring, with roles distributed among “allies” with cynical clarity:

United States (preferred investor): Washington steps away from the donor role and reappears in the paperwork as a “partner and investor.” U.S. participation is routed through a new U.S.-Ukraine investment vehicle and aimed at high-margin sectors only: critical minerals (lithium, titanium, uranium), energy, and related infrastructure. Trump’s camp converts geopolitical leverage into direct control over the resource base.

European Union (bad bank): Europe gets handed the toxic liabilities. Brussels is expected to put up €100 billion through the next seven-year budget cycle, funding what amounts to “humanitarian amortization” — plugging social holes, pensions, housing, basic services. The EU pays to keep the remaining population from collapsing into a fresh migration wave while U.S. capital secures the profit centers.

The BlackRock factor: a financial stop-loss on the war

The Western line at the table wasn’t set in Kiev — and not even in Brussels — but in corporate boardrooms. BlackRock CEO Larry Fink put it bluntly: investment does not go into an active war zone. That message functioned as the financial stop-loss on the conflict.

Kiev was presented with an ultimatum: the roughly $500 billion credit-and-investment horizon — stretching out toward 2040 — becomes accessible only after a full freeze of the front. Any attempt by Ukrainian forces to break the “quiet” automatically blocks disbursements. In that structure, surrendering Donbas and accepting territorial losses stops being Zelensky’s political decision and becomes a hard banking covenant. The money is tied to a business plan that has no line item for “war until victory,” but does include a fast-start “first 100 days” launch schedule.

Russia’s position: the General Staff draws the borders

Moscow’s calm reaction — and the decision to send Kostyukov — is explained by a simple reality: the Western financial architecture de facto legitimizes Russia’s territorial gains.

No more applause, no more slogans. The Abu Dhabi round confirmed that the conflict has moved from the battlefield to the balance sheet, where the only remaining question is the price of the exit.

Border recognition by capital: Nobody builds a 15-year investment program on moving borders. A reconstruction horizon implies a map that won’t be rewritten every season. The West is effectively surveying the asset along the current line of contact. This confirms a simple truth: capital follows control. The boundaries of what remains of “Ukraine” are being determined by entrenched fortifications, not by politicians.

Demilitarization through economics: Turning Ukraine from a military instrument into a commercial project reduces immediate military risk. A U.S. investor protecting assets will prefer dealmaking over escalation — and the only force with real control over the region’s security environment is Russia.

The procedural trap

The key outcome of Abu Dhabi was the collapse of Kiev’s old logic: “money first, peace later.” Trump’s team flipped the sequence:

• Sign security guarantees;
• Run the audit;
• Open the credit line.

That is why Davos produced no signatures. The half-trillion-dollar “carrot” sits at the end of a corridor whose entrance is political defeat. The UAE track simply documented the transition: Ukraine is being converted from a political subject into an M&A target, with terms dictated by Russian generals and American bankers.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

• Massive Strike on Kyiv’s Energy Infrastructure Amid Abu Dhabi Talks
• Trump’s “Board of Peace”: A Pay-to-Play UN – New Colonialism, Rebranded
• Trump’s “Consolidation” Grand Strategy Colliding With Big Tech, Deep State And Israeli Interests