He who deals the cards is the banker?

March 04, 2025 | Volodymyr LIPKAN

One of the important topics is the scientific substantiation of the state’s position and foreign policy course regarding the Minerals Agreement.

I used game theory as a key methodology. It is currently relevant to the structuring of the geostrategic landscape.

Game theory makes it possible to:

Establish that the development of strategies based on judgment is a futile way to implement geostrategy.

To conclude that the most pragmatic is rationality, which is based on an in-depth analysis of the causes and conditions, other determinants that determine Ukraine’s partnership and integration into the European security space, realizing its European civilizational identity. Rationality ensures prudence and caution, justifies the level of risk and reduces impulsiveness.

The author substantiates the need to expand the vectors of foreign policy strategies with the involvement of China, the countries of the global South, and the Asia-Pacific region.

To state that among the key centers of power there is a real interest in ending the war: 1) not in Ukraine’s victory; 2) not in Russia’s defeat.

Based on game theory, it is proposed that Ukraine should

to gain a strategic advantage in this situation by uniting with partner states in a coalition of interests and actions through: 1) stochastic optimization; 2) transformation of the recurrent sequence of events; 3) formation of a clear coalition of interests.

As part of the implementation of the updated GAP in the context of European integration, the following vectors are envisaged in accordance with game theory:

Reducing the bias of European politicians towards Ukraine’s membership in the EU;
preventing the substitution of the real with the desired;
reduction and minimization of opportunities for reinsurance by European politicians in the event of Ukraine’s European integration;
introduction of geostrategic centeredness: 1) in domestic policy, this means Ukraine- and state-centeredness; 2) in foreign policy, it means Euro- and security-centeredness;
intensification of strategic communications; no alternative to acquiring full membership in the EU as soon as possible; countering hybrid forms of ending the war.

Signing the Minerals Agreement from a Game Theory Perspective

According to game theory, Ukraine should consider signing an integrated strategic agreement on mineral resources not only with the United States, as experience has shown that this is dangerous and unpromising from Ukraine’s point of view.

Such an agreement should be concluded on the basis of a coalition of interests of all parties involved, including the countries of the Global South.

Let me remind you that on September 22, 2017, Trump already signed an agreement with the then President of Afghanistan Ashraf Ghani,

President Donald J. Trump met today with President Ashraf Ghani of Afghanistan in New York. President Trump and President Ghani expressed their commitment to fully implementing President Trump’s new South Asia strategy to defeat terrorism and ensure the safety and security of the American and Afghan people. They discussed economic development issues, including how American companies can help quickly develop Afghanistan’s rich rare earth mineral resources. They agreed that such initiatives would help American companies develop materials critical to national security while growing Afghanistan’s economy and creating new jobs in both countries, therefore defraying some of the costs of United States assistance as Afghans become more self-reliant (https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/readout-president-donald-j-trumps-meeting-president-ashraf-ghani-afghanistan/)

It all ended with Ukraine being forced to provide its professional military assistance in the urgent evacuation of international personnel from Afghanistan as a result of the urgent and unpredictable withdrawal (flight) of US troops. After the flight, the United States lost:

the image of a strategic ally;
the brand of a strong state capable of defending its own national interests by force of action, not by force of words;
the function of winning, turning relations with Afghanistan into a zero-sum game: everything the US did for the security and prosperity of Afghanistan was used in its favor by another winner: the new political regime that seized power without resistance.

Conclusions for Ukraine:

The inconsistency and lack of a strategic vision of the Trump regime is its inherent feature. Any agreement with this regime will always be not even tactical, but only operational.

Trump is an unsuccessful businessman, because his current wealth is not the result of his personal professional activities, but was inherited from his father. Therefore, using the method of extrapolation and case study, it is obvious that the Trump regime’s deals bring only fleeting benefits, only to this regime. Other parties always lose, because “when Trump deals, he is the only one who wins.”

For Ukraine, signing these agreements with the United States alone will not be of strategic importance and will not contribute to the establishment of a guaranteed, sustainable, lasting, and just peace.

The agreement should take into account primarily Ukrainian national interests, so the parties to the agreement should be in accordance with game theory: all parties interested in our resources: China, India, the countries of the global South, the countries of the Asia-Pacific region, Saudi Arabia and the BRICS