Lorenzo Maria Pacini
Few have noticed that, taken as such, Trump's peace plan is more like a contract for a real estate investment.
How much is this peace worth?
We are all busy talking about the 28-point peace plan, but few have noticed that, taken as such, it is more like a contract for a real estate investment.
Donald Trump, the great American entrepreneur, the self-made man who embodies the values of the "new world," Epstein's friend, has drawn up a plan that closely resembles another plan, the one for the reconstruction of Gaza, publicly described as a project to "transform Gaza into a five-star resort." On the other hand, it must be acknowledged that Trump is a true businessman, he knows what to do to get what he wants and he knows how to achieve his goals, whatever the cost. And it is precisely the costs that we want to focus on.
How much is this peace worth?
It is difficult to make an exact estimate, but some have already begun to make projections, such as the World Bank Group, which on the third anniversary of the SMO stated in a press release that a document known as RDNA4, Rapid Joint Damage and Needs Assessment, written in collaboration with the Ukrainian government, the European Commission, and the United Nations, estimating that the total cost of Ukraine's recovery would amount to around $524 billion over 10 years, or about 2.8 times Ukraine's estimated nominal GDP in 2024.
The RDNA4, which analyzes the damage suffered between February 24, 2022, and December 31, 2024, highlights that direct damage reached $176 billion (€170 billion), up from the $152 billion estimated in the RDNA3 of February 2024. The sectors most affected are residential construction, transportation, energy, commerce, industry, and education. Thirteen percent of the total housing stock has been compromised or destroyed, affecting more than 2.5 million households. In the energy sector, there has been a 70% increase in damaged or destroyed infrastructure compared to the previous assessment, including production facilities, transmission and distribution networks, and district heating systems. Regions close to the front line have suffered about 72% of the total damage.
For 2025, the Ukrainian government, with the support of international donors, had allocated $7.37 billion to priority sectors such as housing, education, health, social protection, energy, transport, water supply, demining, and civil protection. However, there remained a funding gap of $9.96 billion for reconstruction and recovery needs in the same year. In this context, the involvement of the private sector was confirmed as a decisive factor for the success of Ukraine's recovery.
Which private investors are we talking about?
The European Commission has highlighted the extraordinary scale of the destruction inflicted on Ukraine, reiterating the EU's commitment to supporting reconstruction through the mobilization of private investment and the gradual integration of the country into the European Single Market, creating new economic opportunities for both sides. The greatest reconstruction needs are in the housing sector, with almost $84 billion required, followed by transport (around $78 billion), energy and extractive resources ($68 billion), trade and industry (over $64 billion), and agriculture (over $55 billion). The management and removal of rubble alone will cost close to $13 billion. The assessment also excludes over $13 billion in needs already met thanks to contributions from the state, international partners, and the private sector. In 2024, for example, at least $1.2 billion was allocated to the recovery of the housing sector, while over 2,000 kilometers of national roads benefited from emergency repairs. The RDNA4 also highlights that prioritizing investment in reconstruction will be central to Ukraine's path to EU membership and to strengthening its long-term resilience. These interventions aim not only to repair what has been destroyed by the war, but also to modernize the country through innovative solutions and reforms consistent with European standards, promoting more solid and sustainable development over time.
So, in other words, the investor that would like to profit from this major project is the European Union itself. Imagine $524 billion (today, at the end of 2025, we can imagine that the estimate will be higher) in investments. Imagine what a great business opportunity. Imagine how much the EU needs it, given that it has already spent around €185 billion in aid to Ukraine and is seeking €800 + €150 to wage war against Russia. If mathematics is not a matter of opinion... the EU needs to become the main investor in Ukraine, because only in this way will it be able to recover resources and ensure the survival of its bureaucratic, political, and financial apparatus, and indebt Ukraine for the rest of its existence.
This peace, therefore, is valuable. It is extremely valuable. But if Donald Trump proposes it, the EU cannot agree.
A mega resort on the eastern front
So let's talk about Trump. In his 28-point plan, he proposed using $100 billion of frozen Russian assets for reconstruction. A brilliant move: it's basically financing a start-up with Russian money. A giant mockery of Moscow. Considering that the U.S. government has already officially spent $185 billion on the war, the investment required is practically a 50% recovery of the expenditure. An excellent strategy both to recover some of the lost funds and to use them to its advantage.
Now let's try to imagine what Ukraine could become: a giant five-star resort, headed by the Grand Hotel Ukraine-and let's be a little ironic with the famous Hotel Ukraine in Moscow, which later became the Radisson Hotel, one of Stalin's seven sisters-which would represent U.S. hegemony extending to the far east of Europe. This image has a much deeper meaning than mere aesthetics.
In doing so, the U.S. would achieve a number of results. The first would be to establish a new outpost in Europe, in the Europe from which it has distanced itself politically, but not in terms of influence and hegemony. If Washington was already able to separate Kiev from Moscow, this would guarantee it an entire colony at its disposal, just a few kilometers from the border. If we look at all this from the perspective of the Cold War, we are talking about another American victory.
The U.S., as we said, would also have a new political and military command center in Europe. But which Europe? The current model is already a colony, but British and French influence is too strong for Trump's liking. America wants a Europe 'free' from its domestic powers, to transform it into a province of its decadent empire, to be exploited to the last citizen. It is the law of karma: Europe created the U.S. to colonize the 'new continent', and now the 'new' is turning against the 'old'.
Trump is aware that to disintegrate London and its vassals, he needs time and numerous targeted attacks. Leaving Europe out of negotiations with Ukraine is a serious blow to the credibility and stability of European governments. NATO itself, a major British project to maintain extended control over the Western world, is losing its strength because British leadership is no longer able to hold the military apparatus together.
The point is that Europe is not meant to live in continuity with America, but with Russia. Eurasia is not an opinion, it is a large geopolitical space, a vital space for the expansion and integration of different, tellurocratic, contiguous models of civilization. Dependence on the Atlantic lies in the domain of lies.
And Ukraine, a borderland, is once again called upon to decide which side to take. Return to Russia and allow Eurasian integration, or remain in the orbit of the Western powers, waiting to be transformed into the new playground of some visionary entrepreneur.