Some Insights from Alex Krainer

Geeky News March 2, 2025

Do the events of the past few weeks seem utterly confusing to you?

I thought this interview, linked below, was so important that I typed out the first 34 minutes for you.

If there are references in it that you don't understand, you can look them up. I did.

I listen very carefully to Alex Krainer.

I would like to know what you think.

-----------------

Alex Krainer, from the interview:

It's about resources. Ukraine has some; according to Senator Lindsey Graham, they're talking about 12 trillion dollars.

I believe that Trump's seemingly transactional approach to this problem, of demanding the commitment of these resources to the United States, is actually Trump trolling the United Kingdom.

So, what happened, according to leaks from Ukrainian intelligence, is that Zelensky has been demurring and hesitating and shifting around on the issue of these resources because he had already committed them to the United Kingdom, to Britain.

And this apparently happened on the occasion of him and Keir Starmer signing the 100-year partnership agreement between Ukraine and the United Kingdom. Allegedly, this agreement contains a secret appendix whereby Zelensky signed over all of Ukraine's ports. So the provision is, that upon cessation of hostilities in Ukraine, Britain would take control of all of Ukraine's ports, all of their natural gas deposits, storage facilities and pipelines, titanium deposits, and on and on and on. So basically, he signed over Ukraine's resources to the United Kingdom.

This was published by a Czech portal called AE NEWS, which apparently is quite well informed. And I read into the 100 year agreement, which you can find online, at UK.Gov --or something-- it's not difficult to find. And when you read that agreement carefully it makes it plausible that this is in fact what happened.

So the question of these resources is not a new thing that Donald Trump just thought up in an acute attack of pathological greed. It is something that Zelensky put forward to him back in September, before Trump was even elected, because he was afraid that if Trump gets elected, that Ukraine might likely lose the support of the United States. So he went to New York, he met with Trump --this was toward the end of September-- and he made this proposal: continue backing us, and I'll offer you Ukraine's resources in compensation.

But when the Brits got the wind of this, they rushed to pre-empt Trump. And so the 100-year partnership agreement was signed on 16th January. Keir Starmer went over to Kiev with this agreement. It was signed there, This was only 4 days before Trump's inauguration.

And so now we have this diplomatic incident, where Zelensky promises something one day, and then he talks to the media and says exactly the opposite, insults Donald Trump, embarrasses the secretary of state, Rubio, and basically antagonizes the very party whose support he's desperate to keep.

So how to explain this? How to explain that little dictator Zelensky is antagonizing the United States, and he's desperate for the US support? The explanation, I think, is the role of the United Kingdom.

I exposed this in a number of articles I published on SUBSTACK. The United Kingdom is in a catastrophic fiscal situation. They're desperate for collateral to float up their financial system, and so they wanted to grab at Ukraine's resources. This could be the collateral that could fuel another large-scale credit cycle.

I am certain-- to me it's inconceivable that Trump and his team are not aware of this. I think they're completely aware of this, and I think that Trump demanding these resources, is actually Trump trolling the Brits.

And at the same time he was saying that President Zelensky's a dictator --and then there was a hysterical reaction to that statement in the UK-- why? Because Zelensky signed that 100-year agreement. And if Zelensky's not the legitimate leader of Ukraine, he's not the legitimate representative, then his signature on that agreement is worthless.

So suddenly all of the UK media, and Keir Starmer, and nigel Farage, who controls the position of the City of London, they all jumped to the defense. "No, no, he's not a dictator, he's the duly elected Ukrainian president."

Well, it's irrelevant what they think. Ukraine has a constitution, the supreme law of the land, which says that the presidential term is for five years, and cannot be extended for any reason. It doesn't make any provisions for skipping elections, delaying elections, extending the president's term for even one day. So under Ukraine's constitution, he's not the legitimate leader.

So now Keir Starmer has to rush to the United States talk to Trump, and beg him to back off. And I'm sure he is going to say, "Leave all these resources in the British capable hands. We'll make sure that you are happy with this as well, and we'll bring some US corporations corporations to help develop all this, and share the cake. But please don't take this away from us."

That's also the reason why Starmer was so keen to offer UK troops for Ukraine-- the so-called "Peacekeepers", and then they changed the name to "Reassurance Forces," or something like that, and I think they did that because if they called it the "tripwire forces" it would be maybe a bit too obvious.

The reason is, if you want to control the resources, if you want to make sure that those resources remain committed as collateral for your banking system, you need the ability to enforce those agreements. You need "peacekeepers."

So the Brits volunteered 10,000. Starmer is still obsessed with doing this, even though there's no popular support for this in the UK. And then they're kind of trying to rally the Europeans, the French, and now with Friedrich Merz in Germany they might have some buy-in from the Germans for that. The reason is not peace-keeping, the reason is making sure that these agreements with Ukraine, stick.

And now, given that the only part of this that is relevant here is the United States, Zelensky reversed himself yet again, and he said, "OK, I will sign over these resources to the United States-- but no firm commitment, no details, this is still just a delaying level of talk, so he will apparently travel to Washington to sign this agreement over.

And Trump has said, "Well, OK, then, maybe we'll continue to support you."

But I am convinced that this is Trump trolling Britain. Because he knows that Zelensky already signed over these resources to Britain, and that Zelensky can’t really....that it's going to become a conflict between the US and Britain.

And so I think, if this is all true, and I think very likely it is, and reading that agreement makes it sound really plausible, then it will be an epic episode of poetic justice because Britain was the lead in using Ukraine as a proxy in their war against Russia. And now it seems that the Trump administration is turning it around and using Ukraine as a proxy in their attack on the United Kingdom. And there's no doubt who's going to win, because the United Kingdom has bleakly painted itself into a corner, they have no force of their own to enforce anything at all, they're in desperate financial and economic straits. And Keir Starmer's gotten desperately unpopular and probably won't last for much longer.

So it's looking like curtains for Britain, and I think we're going to find out much, much more about this in the next few weeks.

Interviewer: How much do you think that what's going on in Britain has to do with Ukraine, and with their gamble in Ukraine?

I think it has everything to do with it. Keir Starmer's turn for Orwellian authoritarianism started last July. I think it was 29th July when you had the stabbings of three young girls in Southport, UK. And he used that incident, which was probably staged, to step up the repression against the British people. And they started enacting all these new "hate speech" laws, censorship, they're accelerating their move to digital ID, to banking controls. They will make it exceedingly easy for British banks to "unbank" individual Britons. You know, let's call it an industrial strength version of what Canadian banks have done to the trucker protestors a few years ago.

This all started happening at the very same time when Ukraine defaulted on their debt obligations to western financial institutions. So on 31st July, Zelensky declared default, for all practical purposes, suspensions of repayment of foreign debt, which was effective 1st of August.

And there had already been several weeks of negotiations about these repayments. The western financial institutions gave Ukraine a 2-year grace period for an amount of about 20 billion dollars, and then that grace period expired on 1st of August. And then they had to rush a few billion dollars from the European Union, which was paid out by the Council of Europe.

It's a big massive mess. It's very difficult to read because obviously the information is being concealed, but-- in the UK, we had two very significant changes that took place last summer, so we're talking late july. The repression, the Southport stabbing, the changes in the Bank of England rules, all happened at about the same time.

And the changes in the Bank of England rules are not something that people discuss over coffee or in bars, but it's very relevant because the Bank of England decided to radically loosen the credit standards for collateral that they accept in exchange for liquidity, meaning, in exchange for cash, that they give to firms, pension funds, banking institutions, and so forth. They lowered the credit standards.

Usually, central banks will exchange liquidity in exchange for, let's call it, "no-risk" collateral. What they did is pretty much that they did away with all that and they announced that they would be accepting a much broader range of assets. Which probably means that they will start accepting toxic sludge as money-good collateral to extend to parties on a pound for pound basis. Which very likely --this was never spelled out in any of their press releases and documents-- but it pretty much means that people who got stuck with Ukraine bonds can pledge them to the Bank of England and get pound for pound liquidity-- essentially, free money.

What that does, is, downstream, that is going to end up causing inflation. And the British people are already at the brink. The economic situation is dismal, the poverty is through the roof, massive amounts of children and families live below the poverty line, unemployment is sky-high, the GDP is next to dead --I think in the last quarter of 2024 the real GDP growth in the United Kingdom was 0.1%. It's the worst-performing economy in G7. I think that this is largely due to a few idiotic strategy directions by the British government, but in large part also because they are very, very heavily invested in Project Ukraine, and now that whole thing is turning into a very bad investment.

It's going to impact the British economy, and it's going to impact the standard of living of the British people. In this situation you could lose control of the society. You could end up with a revolution on your hands.

And so to pre-empt this, the government has to rapidly roll out this Orwellian repression system where they end up giving themselves the ability to put anybody away for pretty much any kind of offense. But they are most concerned with "hate speech," with censoring free speech, and with making it near-impossible for the British people to assemble and protest. They are really, truly in desperate straits and I think if they continue in this direction they are going to make North Korea look like libertarian democracy by comparison.

(Interviewer starts to ask why Britain keeps talking about putting troops on the ground when clearly Donald Trump is not interested in this.)

Sorry to interrupt, but that is exactly where we get into the question of having a government of savvy operators versus having a government of morons and degenerates So if you had Kamala Harris in the White House, Keir Starmer would charm her with his British accent and these empty slogans, and stories about aligned liberal values, shared values, and blah blah blah, and Kamala Harris and her cabinet would sign off on whatever Keir Starmer wanted. And when they face Donald Trump, and Scott Bessent, and Marco Rubio --OK, so Marco Rubio is maybe not the savviest of operators-- but there are a number of people in Trump's team who are very, very sophisticated thinkers.

I read a paper by Trump's nominee for the head of his Council of Economic advisors --I forget his name-- if you read this paper, you really, really need to put your thinking cap on, and you realize that this is a very sophisticated person, with very extensive, detailed knowledge of how the economic and financial systems work. They can do cost/benefit analysis If you compare that to the former chairman of the Council of Economic advisors under Biden, Jerrod Bernstein, Bernstein is a certifiable moron. I think you could still find his (Bernstein's) statements on Youtube where he is displaying a shocking level of ignorance about his supposed domain of expertise. He has no idea how the Federal Reserve functions, how the US Treasury issues bonds, where inflation comes from in all this... and he launches into a statement that is so incoherent that you would berate a child if he said this. It's like, "go and read up on this material-- you have no idea what you're talking about."

Bu here you have the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. I'm sorry to use that word. I really can't use a more charitable word for this.

And so if you bring the lawyer, knight of the British Empire, Sir Keir Starmer, in front of people, they're easy to dazzle. And you would have a very different outcome. And if they said, "We'll put 10,000 troops in if you'll commit 20...30...50....and then the Germans will put in some and then the French will put in some, and then the Romanians and the Poles and the Baltic states, and we'll assemble a whole army, and we'll have a peace-keeping operation in Ukraine, and we'll make sure...well, they wouldn't say this but what they want is to make sure that those resources of Ukraine, that they need as collateral for the western banking system "remains under our control and that we can defend them by the force of arms."

When they come to Trump, Trump is going to say, "Well, this is costing us a lot--what's the benefit? You have nothing to offer. On the other hand, the Russians are offering us quite a lot. And they have a whole lot more of these rare earth minerals, and pipelines, and natural gas and oil, and whatever you want. So we can do deals with Russia, and it'll be profitable for them and for us. For you, we have massive debts, we have huge expenses to maintain this Ukraine project alive, and there's no certainty of positive outcome because the Russians are winning the war."

So that's the cost/benefit analysis, so I think it's relatively easy to predict that Keir Starmer won't achieve anything in Washington, either.

(Interviewer mentions that during the recent talks between the US and Russia in Saudi Arabia, Ukraine was described as a minor issue.)

Yes, exactly. And I think that what appears as a transactional approach by the Trump government --and it's easy for people to convince themselves that this is Trump in a nutshell because, you know, he was this real estate developer and he wants to cut deals and make profits and win, and he wants to always win. It's very easy to think in those terms. But I think that his policies are deeply strategic with a very long term view.

And the objective is nothing less than to completely overhaul the global system of governance, to move away from the post-WWII global order. We know this because Marco Rubio pretty much explicitly said that during his confirmation hearing on the 15th January this year. He said, explicitly, that the post WWII order is obsolete --he said that it is more than obsolete. He said that it is presently being used as a weapon against us. There's no question-- that Marco did not invent this himself. He was speaking on behalf of the government of Donald Trump. It confirms that they are completely serious about rejecting the post-WWII order and developing a different one.

So who are you going to talk to about a new world order? You're not going to talk to the Brits, you're not going to talk to the Ukrainians. You're going to talk to the Russians, and to the Chinese. And this is what I think is the foreign policy agenda of the four years of Donald Trump.

This feeding frenzy over Ukraine's resources is, I think, a narrative for distraction of, not so much the public, but maybe of the European leadership and mainstream media. But the real deals are being discussed about the next global order.

---

The video:

---

Alex Krainer is the founder of Krainer Analytics and creator of I-System Trend Following. He has worked as a market analyst, researcher, trader, and hedge fund manager since 1996. Born in former Yugoslavia and served in the Croatian Army in 1995's war of independence, Alex has studied and lived in Switzerland and the USA. He currently lives and works in Monaco. He is the author of the books 'The Grand Deception' and 'Mastering Uncertainties in Commodities Trading'.

https://www.thepeninsula.org.in/author/alex-krainer/

---

As always,

Best wishes,

Haru

---