From Ukraine to the Congo: US Strategy Unveiled
Initially, it was Ukraine. Then came the Congo. What seemed like international aid has now exposed a more ambitious architecture: the United States is building its own Belt and Road Initiative, but with geopolitical concrete and transparency clauses.
The model is clear: investment in infrastructure in exchange for preferential access to critical resources. China has done this for over a decade with its Belt and Road Initiative. Now, under the guise of national security, Washington is copying the playbook… and adapting it to war-torn regions.
Ukraine: Reconstruction as Power
In March, the US and Ukraine signed an agreement that guarantees Washington access to strategic minerals such as lithium, titanium, and uranium. Amidst war, reconstruction contracts are already being designed.
The agreement, promoted by the Trump administration, is presented as “responsible mining,” but behind this language lies the logic of energy dominance. Ukraine is not only a battlefield; it’s an opportunity field. The future of its resources is already committed.
BlackRock and JP Morgan have been designing the post-war economy for months, even before peace arrives.
Africa: Peace with Conditions
The same pattern appears in Central Africa. The northeast of the Congo is currently a war scene between the M23 rebel group (supported by Rwanda) and the Congolese government. President Felix Tshisekedi requested help from Trump, offering minerals in exchange.
Massad Boulos, Trump’s advisor and brother-in-law, embarked on a tour of the Congo, Rwanda, Kenya, and Uganda to negotiate a political exit… and an economic entrance.
The deal is clear: cobalt, lithium, tantalum, and tin in exchange for infrastructure, in an environment of “legal security” that reassures US capital.
In parallel, Trinity Metals—owner of Rwanda’s largest tin mine—signed a direct supply chain agreement with the US.
Mineral diplomacy is no longer hidden: it’s signed, transported, and traded. And just like in Ukraine, the country offering its resources also cedes some of its maneuvering room.
Recycled Geopolitics
For years, Washington criticized the Belt and Road Initiative as a form of Chinese dependency. Today, it does the same, but with a different discourse.
China builds before conflict. The US rebuilds after devastation. The result is the same: long-term contracts that redraw global influence.
Investment no longer prevents war; it follows it. The new colonialism doesn’t need armies. A memorandum is enough. Reconstruction is the new face of conquest: it has PowerPoint presentations, ESG standards, and investment funds.
And Mexico?
Meanwhile, Mexico is absent. Not in Africa or Ukraine, but in shaping the world to come. It neither proposes, influences, nor competes. It still lacks an international narrative.
While others sow influence, we remain silent. The Washington Route is already underway. Its stations are where there are crises, resources, and power vacuums.
Though marketed as reconstruction, one thing is clear: the architecture of the world is decided by contracts, not discourses.
Key Questions and Answers
- What is the Washington Route? It refers to the US strategy of investing in infrastructure in strategic regions, similar to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, with the aim of gaining preferential access to critical resources.
- Why is the US adopting this strategy? The US is using this approach under the guise of national security, adapting China’s long-term infrastructure investment strategy to post-conflict regions.
- How does this affect the countries involved? Countries like Ukraine and the Congo are offering their resources in exchange for reconstruction, but this also means ceding some of their decision-making power and committing to long-term contracts that reshape global influence.
- What about Mexico’s role? Mexico appears to be absent from this new geopolitical landscape, lacking an international narrative and failing to propose, influence, or compete in shaping the world’s future.
