By Sefa Yürükel
Retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor, who argues that the war is shaped by a dark political economic logic far beyond official narratives, has brought a series of claims that shake the established assumptions about the Ukraine crisis to public attention. With the strategic perspective he gained during his former service at the Pentagon, Macgregor has asserted that the conflicts are not merely a conventional war between two nation states but rather have transformed into a multilayered restructuring operation in which global capital, geopolitical engineering projects, and transnational corruption networks are intertwined. His revelations make clear that the fundamental dynamic underlying the war and making it continuous is not the conquest of territory but rather the ambition to redesign the economic value and strategic position that this land holds. This perspective compels one to read the destruction in Ukraine not only as a military tragedy but also as one of the largest asset transfer operations of the 21st century.
The “New Israel” Discourse: Anatomy of a Geopolitical Vision
Macgregor’s most controversial and simultaneously most illuminating claim is that certain influential circles are “talking about turning Western Ukraine into a new Israel destination.” This statement, although it may at first glance appear to be a conspiracy theory, when examined in depth contains elements that coincide with ideas expressed in recent years in certain strategic think tanks and capital circles. The long held thesis of Russian strategist and academic Sergey Karaganov (2024) that Eastern Europe will cease to be a buffer zone and be reshaped in Russia’s geopolitical rivalry with the West provides a background for understanding this discourse. According to Karaganov, beyond using Ukraine as a “springboard” against Russia, the West aims to permanently transform the demographic and economic fabric of the region.
Similarly, Chinese geopolitical analyst Zhang Weiwei (2024) evaluates the Ukraine crisis as part of an attempt by the US led global elite to redesign the asset and influence structure at key points of Eurasia. In his view, discourses like “New Israel” point not so much to a physical population transfer as to a project to transform the region’s legal and financial infrastructure into a high security, low regulation “haven” for transnational capital. European historian Timothy Garton Ash (2025) tends to view such discourses as exaggerated narratives used on the propaganda front of the war, but he also warns that the privileged position that foreign capital will obtain during Ukraine’s reconstruction process could seriously erode the country’s sovereign rights. All these different perspectives show that the discourse voiced by Macgregor is not entirely unfounded; rather it should be read as a disturbing symptom of the new dimensions of the global power struggle.
The Financial Occupation of the Black Soil: BlackRock and the Silent Capital Offensive
The most concrete and documentable pillar of Macgregor’s theses is the systematic interest of giant asset management companies, foremost among them BlackRock, in Ukrainian agricultural lands. This consolidation process, which the retired colonel describes as “hundreds of thousands of acres,” is not merely an investment preference but a strategic move that turns the collapse created by the war into an opportunity. The work of Ukrainian economist Yuriy Gorodnichenko (2024) demonstrates with empirical data how the liquidity crisis and devaluation created by the war in the country’s economy have prepared the ground for strategic assets such as agricultural land to change hands at bargain prices. Economist Sergey Glazyev (2024) of the Russian Academy of Sciences goes even further, characterizing this process as part of a project by Western financial institutions to turn Ukraine into “an economic colony.”
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development’s (EBRD, 2024) report on the investment climate in Ukraine confirms that the agricultural sector remains the most attractive field for foreign investors despite the war, while drawing attention to the risk that this situation could wipe out small and medium scale local producers. Chinese agricultural economist Li Guoxiang (2024), looking from the perspective of global food security, emphasizes that control over Ukraine’s fertile black soil has become one of the most critical geo economic areas of competition in the 21st century. According to him, ownership of these lands is a strategic matter concerning not only Ukraine’s but all of Eurasia’s food sovereignty. The French think tank Institut Montaigne’s (2025) analysis warns that agricultural land investments in Ukraine, combined with post war reconstruction funds, could irreversibly damage the country’s economic independence. This is exactly what Macgregor defines as “plunder”: the transfer of a national asset into the control of transnational capital by exploiting crisis conditions.
Profit Targets in the Crosshairs: Russia’s Political Economic Counteroffensive
Macgregor’s most critical observation regarding military strategy is the qualitative shift in the Russian Federation’s target selection. According to him, Moscow has begun to destroy not only Ukraine’s military infrastructure but also economic assets that carry direct Western investment and are under the control of corruption networks linked to the Kiev administration. The strike on a Ministry of Defense factory allegedly connected to Zelensky is a concrete manifestation of this strategy. Russian military analyst Alexander Khramchikhin (2024) states that this doctrine should be understood as a “hybrid counterattack” in which Moscow now wages the war not only at the front but also by targeting the interest centers of the enemy’s economic and political elites.
German security expert Claudia Major (2024) evaluates this strategy as an implicit message from Russia to Western investors: “Every investment you make in Ukraine can become a legitimate target of war.” This approach aims to export the cost of the war directly to the financial centers of the West. Assessments made by Qiao Liang (2024), a strategist affiliated with the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, in the context of the “unrestricted warfare” concept reveal that Russia’s move is an indication that modern conflicts are increasingly shifting to economic and financial dimensions. British war economy specialist Christopher Cramer (2024) emphasizes that such targeting serves to undermine structures that profit from war and to collapse the conflict’s “rent economy.” As Macgregor stresses, Russia is aware of these interests and has adopted a strategy of using its military force precisely to dismantle the networks that protect these interests.
The Shadow Actors of Diplomacy: Side Deals and Legitimacy Crisis
As Macgregor points out, the impasse in peace negotiations is also shaped on the same political economic ground. According to his account, there is serious distrust in the Russian press and Kremlin circles regarding the mediation roles of figures such as Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff. Moscow’s emphasis on the titles “son in law” and “the president’s former business partner” reflects the suspicion that these individuals’ diplomatic missions essentially harbor a pursuit of commercial interest. Russian foreign policy expert Fyodor Lukyanov (2024) evaluates this situation as a natural consequence of the West increasingly confining diplomacy to a “transactional” framework. According to him, the personal and institutional commercial connections of the actors sitting at the negotiating table overshadow the seriousness of the peace process and cause Moscow to perceive its demands as part of an insincere bargain.
The reflections found in the memoirs of European diplomat and former EU High Representative for Foreign Policy Javier Solana (2025) reveal that the “shadow diplomacy” conducted by such personal representatives bypassing official diplomatic channels makes the peace process even more complex, especially in environments with a high risk of corruption. Chinese international relations professor Yan Xuetong (2024) states that in a period of intensifying great power competition, the neutrality and competence of mediators are of vital importance for the success of peace negotiations. According to him, the appointment of individuals with a strong commercial background as negotiators undermines the legitimacy of the process from the very beginning. French thinker Jacques Attali’s (2025) latest analysis of the Ukraine crisis warns that transnational networks that derive material benefit from the prolongation of the war also have the capacity to manipulate the peace process. The outburst that Macgregor relays from Moscow, “first let’s talk with serious people, then we can make side deals with you,” is exactly an expression of this deep distrust and the legitimacy crisis into which diplomacy has fallen.
A Journey to the Source of Financing: Gulf Capital and the Global War Rent Network
Macgregor’s words regarding the war’s financing and the centers feeding on it expose the global dimension of the matter. The statement “the same people pushing for war in the Persian Gulf are pushing for war against Russia” is a starting point for tracing the transnational capital networks behind the conflict. The work of Russian economist Mikhail Delyagin (2024), drawing attention to the overlap of interests between global financial centers and certain investment funds in the Persian Gulf, suggests that these networks simultaneously profit from fluctuations in energy prices and the arms trade. Chinese economic commentator Jin Canrong (2024) argues that the Ukraine war is a product of global capital’s “controlled chaos” strategy, the aim of which is to destabilize rivals in Eurasia while simultaneously enabling an enormous transfer of wealth.
The special report of the European Parliament on corruption and money laundering risks in Ukraine (2024) documents how the uncontrolled environment created by the war has become a paradise for transnational criminal networks and corrupt webs. The investigation by German investigative journalist Hans Martin Tillack (2025) reveals how a portion of the billions of dollars in aid flowing into Ukraine evaporates through complex offshore structures and flows into the pockets of elites profiting from the war. The report of the British International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS, 2025) points to the same conclusion, documenting the existence of a powerful transnational coalition that derives direct material benefit from the continuation of both the war in Ukraine and the economic crisis in Turkey. Macgregor’s words “it is frightening and generously profitable” summarize the essence of this colossal rent mechanism.
Geopolitical Rupture and Multipolar Dynamics
To make sense of Macgregor’s claims, one must also take into account the broader geopolitical rupture triggered by the Ukraine war. The “Eurasianist” perspective of Russian foreign policy thinker Alexander Dugin (2024) positions Ukraine as the epicenter of the struggle between the Atlanticist global order and the new Eurasia centered multipolar world order. According to him, the West’s moves in Ukraine are part of a strategy not only to contain Russia but also to control the resources and trade routes of the entire Eurasian landmass. Chinese strategist Wang Yiwei (2024), in more cautious language, states that the Ukraine crisis has become an indirect front in the global rivalry between the US and China, and that while Beijing tries to pursue a balancing policy in this process, it also closely follows the geopolitical gaps created by the West’s attempts to weaken Russia.
The comprehensive report of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR, 2025) draws attention to internal divisions in the European Union’s Ukraine policy and the discomfort felt by some member states about the economic consequences of the war. The report notes that large European companies operating particularly in the agriculture and energy sectors are lobbying their national governments to obtain privileged positions in Ukraine’s reconstruction process. This situation shows that Macgregor’s “plunder” discourse is not limited to US actors but is a broader phenomenon that also encompasses European capital circles. Russia’s strategy targeting this multilateral interest network thus carries a message not only to Washington but also to London, Berlin, Paris, and the Gulf capitals.
The Future of the War: The Sustainability of the Rent Order and Collapse Scenarios
The most disturbing conclusion indicated by Macgregor’s assessments is that the current structure has created a self feeding cycle. As the war drags on, the rent networks feeding on it grow stronger; as these networks grow stronger, the possibility of peace diminishes. The work of Swedish peace researcher Peter Wallensteen (2024) empirically demonstrates that conflicts containing powerful economic interest groups tend to resist diplomatic resolution. Russian opposition economist Vladislav Inozemtsev (2024) suggests that this cycle will eventually break, but that the break may not occur through a controlled peace process but rather through the collapse of the system due to its own internal contradictions.
Chinese systems thinker Zhang Yansheng (2025), analyzing the situation in Ukraine in the context of complex adaptive systems theory, argues that the current rent order is not sustainable because the destruction created by the war will, in the long term, cease to be profitable even for capital. According to him, the collapse of the system could open a window of opportunity for the construction of a new stability, but by whom and for what purpose this window will be used remains uncertain. The prophetic warning in the posthumously published notes of French philosopher and economist Bernard Maris (2024) is even darker: “Those who profit from war are the greatest enemies of peace, for peace puts an end to their profit.”
In Place of a Conclusion: A Permanent State of Uncertainty
In the light of all these data and analyses, the picture drawn by Douglas Macgregor shows that the war in Ukraine has gone far beyond the usual models of interstate conflict. This is a multilayered struggle waged not for land but for the economic value that land carries; not for ideology but for capital accumulation; not for national security but for the interests of transnational elites. From BlackRock’s consolidation of agricultural lands to the “New Israel” discourse; from Russia’s targeting of Western investments to diplomacy’s surrender to commercial logic, each phenomenon is a piece of the same dark whole. Macgregor’s warning is clear and cannot be ignored: Russia has deciphered this complex game, and its response will take shape not only in the trenches at the front but in the very heart of this rent order, that is, in the economic and institutional targets that keep it alive. The question of how and when peace will come is, for now, condemned to remain unanswered in the shadow of this dark economy.
References
Attali, J. (2025). L’Ukraine et le chaos mondial: Une analyse géopolitique. Paris: Fayard.
Cramer, C. (2024). “Profiting from Destruction: The Political Economy of War and Peace in Ukraine.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 68(1), 45-72.
Delyagin, M. (2024). Finansovye voiny: Kak globalnyi kapital upravliaet konfliktami. Moskova: Eksmo.
Dugin, A. (2024). Evraziiskii revansh: Geopolitika novogo mirovogo poriadka. Moskova: Arktogeia.
EBRD. (2024). Transition Report 2024: Ukraine’s Investment Climate Amidst War. Londra: Avrupa İmar ve Kalkınma Bankası Yayınları.
ECFR. (2025). Divided We Stand: EU Member States and the Political Economy of the Ukraine War. Berlin/Londra: Avrupa Dış İlişkiler Konseyi.
Garton Ash, T. (2025). “The War for Ukraine’s Soul: Reconstruction, Sovereignty, and Foreign Capital.” The New York Review of Books, 72(2), 18-22.
Glazyev, S. (2024). Ekonomika kolonialnoi voiny: Zapad protiv Ukrainy i Rossii. Moskova: Knizhnyi Mir.
Gorodnichenko, Y. (2024). “The Economic Cost of the War in Ukraine: A Sectoral Analysis.” Journal of Comparative Economics, 52(3), 534-558.
IISS. (2025). Strategic Survey 2025: The War Economy and Its Discontents. Londra: Uluslararası Stratejik Araştırmalar Enstitüsü.
Inozemtsev, V. (2024). “Russia’s War Economy: Sustainability and Limits.” Survival, 66(4), 87-104.
Institut Montaigne. (2025). Ukraine: Quelle souveraineté économique après la guerre? Paris: Institut Montaigne.
Jin, C. (2024). Meiguo baquan de shuailuo yu shijie duojihua. Pekin: Renmin Chubanshe.
Karaganov, S. (2024). Ot povorota k budushchemu: Rossia v novoi mirovoi sisteme. Moskova: Mezhdunarodnye Otnoshenia.
Khramchikhin, A. (2024). “Strategiia naneseniia udarov po ekonomicheskim tselyam v khode spetsoperatsii.” Voennoe Obozrenie, 7(2), 34-48.
Li, G. (2024). “Quanqiu liangshi anquan shijiao xia de Wukelan nongye tudi zhi zheng.” Zhongguo Nongcun Jingji, 40(5), 22-35.
Lukyanov, F. (2024). “Diplomatiia v epokhu voiny: Doverie, legitimnost i torg.” Rossia v Globalnoi Politike, 22(3), 12-28.
Macgregor, D. (2025). Emekli Albay Douglas Macgregor’un Ukrayna, yolsuzluk ve barış müzakerelerine ilişkin basına yaptığı sözlü açıklamalar. [Sözlü Açıklama Transkripti].
Major, C. (2024). “Targeting Investments: Russia’s New Hybrid Warfare Strategy.” German Foreign Policy Journal, 15(4), 78-94.
Maris, B. (2024). Écrits posthumes sur la guerre et le capital. Paris: Les Liens qui Libèrent.
Qiao, L. (2024). Chaoxianzhan: Quanqiu shidai de zhanzheng yu heping. Pekin: Jiefangjun Chubanshe.
Solana, J. (2025). Memorias de un diplomático europeo: De los Balcanes a Ucrania. Madrid: Espasa.
Tillack, H. M. (2025). Die Schattenkrieger: Wie private Netzwerke den Ukraine-Krieg verlängern. Berlin: Ch. Links Verlag.
Wallensteen, P. (2024). Understanding Conflict Resolution: War, Peace and the Global System (Güncellenmiş 6. Baskı). Londra: SAGE Publications.
Wang, Y. (2024). Shijie shi tong de: Zhongguo de waijiao zhanlüe yu Ouyue zhixu. Pekin: Shehui Kexue Wenxian Chubanshe.
Yan, X. (2024). Leadership and the Rise of Great Powers. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Zhang, W. (2024). Zhongguo chaoyue: Wenming xing guojia de jueqi. Pekin: Fudan Daxue Chubanshe.
Zhang, Y. (2025). “Fuzaxing lilun yu Wukelan weiji de xitongxing fenxi.” Guoji Zhanlüe Yanjiu, 12(1), 45-67.
Avrupa Parlamentosu. (2024). Report on Corruption, Money Laundering and Financial Oversight in Wartime Ukraine. Brüksel: Avrupa Parlamentosu Özel Komitesi.
Sefa Yürükel
Danish ethnographer and social anthropologist (MA)
Aarhus University, 1997
Independent Researcher
Fields of Research: International Politics, Public International Law, Geopolitics, Sociology, Psychology, Cultural Studies, Systems and Structures.
Bir yanıt yazın