The Defining Agreement of the MillenniumThe Defining Agreement of the Millennium
Serhiy Kaplin, MP of the VII-VIII convocations, Secretary General of the Confederation of Trade Unions of Ukraine
Ninety percent of people worldwide are unaware of the text, historical context, or subtext of the Subsurface Agreement between the United States and Ukraine. This must change. The very existence of the Ukrainian state, the prevention of a third world war, and the fate of millions of Ukrainians may hinge on what is effectively the “Agreement of the Millennium.” This agreement affects your life—the life of every European, American, every community, and every continent. Ultimately, these few pages hold the potential to transform into an instrument for positive global change in the international order and the balance of power.
I aim to share my vision of how the “seeds” of this agreement will germinate, evolve into a prototype for new international relations, and lay the groundwork for institutions of partnership beyond, or in parallel with, traditional organizations like the UN and NATO. We will also examine how Russia and other actors will respond within Ukraine’s domestic politics: from co-opting leftist movements and trade unions, to establishing a full-fledged political incubator designed to rotate elites—from local communities, through Kyiv, and up to Parliament and the presidency. They will craft a factory and a herd of Trojan horses to seize political power. Russia understands very well that the cost of a national campaign for a political party in Ukraine equals that of a single fighter jet; a parliamentary seat in a single-member district—one tank; a mayoral race—one helicopter. All the players in this war have learned this arithmetic. The next twelve years will be twelve rounds of heavyweight battle, and every missed blow could be fatal—not just for Ukraine, but for the world.
First, nothing in international politics comes for free. Behind every leader—be it Trump or Zelensky—stand millions of people and the interests of their nations, of the companies that pay taxes. The world, and Ukraine especially, must shed the naïve belief that countries simply spread values like bees carry pollen, that they protect the weak, or form alliances solely for the sake of abstract freedoms or human rights. There is no such thing as pure charity, purposeless friendship, or irrational affection between nations. Accepting this old-new reality will make it easier to both conclude and comprehend “agreements” that become the core constructive tools of politics in the coming years.
Conversely, we must accept the rules of the new world: the price of freedom and independence is measured in the lives of nations and the competence of highly trained elites—capable of forging partnerships and playing the political game on par with other global powers. History follows a pragmatic script. The real mistake is not in speaking frankly with the people and dismantling comforting myths, but in maintaining the illusion that nations are protected by some hollow geopolitical mythology or false security. Every nation must know the price of peace, the cost of prosperity and happiness, and its foreseeable future. War stood at the gates of Kyiv, but due to outdated political ethics, millions refused to see it until the final hour before the full-scale invasion. Even politicians and the media became hostages to this culture of denial. The world, we must acknowledge, is in extraordinary danger—and profoundly unprepared to accept political reality.
Second, Ukraine needs a partner to defend its territory and people. The United States holds a natural monopoly on such strategic partnerships—a fact proven by two world wars. Europe and other alliances, no matter how strong, cannot work with Ukraine in a consolidated and self-sufficient manner without the involvement of the United States.
The U.S. is reconfiguring its foreign policy paradigm—from being a “democracy donor” and a geopolitical maximalist promoting color revolutions, endless cold wars, and doctrines of escalation—to a new model: pragmatic and dynamic diplomacy based on strategic agreements, tariff policy, and the creation of new institutions and alliances. The United States no longer has time for “long projects,” and the restoration of its axis of responsible and pragmatic leadership has become a matter of planetary survival.
This shift toward “dynamic diplomacy” is driven by the global ascent of China and other players. The choice is stark: either the U.S. acts swiftly and decisively, or the world may soon wake up to a reality of total technological and geopolitical dominance by Communist China. The U.S. is now working to recover lost time, leadership opportunities, and competitive advantages by rapidly expanding its sphere of influence and replicating new strategic ideas. There is no time to spare—America’s democratic hegemony and global credibility currently rest on the inertia of past achievements. The new U.S. administration is injecting energy into a course of swift decisions and strategy-making. In essence, the United States is decomposing the old world order—and this is precisely why it is interested in ending the war in Ukraine: to remove internal political obstacles and free itself to pursue other pragmatic partnerships and strategic alliances.
That is why the United States has, in effect, accommodated Ukraine in this Agreement—choosing not to impose rigid debt obligations or burdensome conditions. Ukraine has attuned itself to this strategic logic.
Third, attention must now shift to the three potential “seasons” of this Agreement—short-term, mid-term, and long-term.
The mission of the first phase for Ukraine is to ensure a full-fledged presence of American business within Ukrainian territories and specifically in sectors categorized as “high military risk.” These include regions like Poltava, Kharkiv, Dnipro, and Odesa. Following a comprehensive audit of Ukraine’s resource capabilities, precise locations will be identified—these, in turn, will become de facto security red lines for the aggressor. In those territories, America will be physically present, and by definition and according to the Agreement, peace will prevail.
For the United States, the first phase is about compensating for defense expenditures in Ukraine, establishing a new logic of partnership, and communicating clearly to the American public the justification for continued financial support to Ukraine. Defense funding will require time and considerable resources. Americans concerned with the rising costs—many of whom are themselves struggling with domestic crises—will no longer criticize their government as fiercely. The political opposition will lose one of its most potent cards. The U.S. administration will consolidate public opinion and secure bipartisan support.
In the second phase, we will witness Russia’s realization of symmetrical U.S. support for Ukraine, rooted in a long-term economic and strategic presence. Ukraine will proceed with reprivatization of factories and industrial assets, the reclamation of land and natural resource deposits, and—as a consequence—the attraction of American investment. Some major enterprises will be nationalized. This will amount to a full reset of property rights and control over assets stolen by oligarchs during the 2000s.
Thus, a broader “partnership base” between the U.S. and Ukraine will be established—dealing a devastating blow to Ukraine’s oligarchic class. This integration of the two nations will require enhancements to Ukraine’s institutional superstructure: judicial reform, public administration reform, decentralization, and of course, the development of infrastructure. The central task will be strengthening Ukraine’s defense capabilities.
The third phase of this transformation—the “Agreement of the Millennium”—will unfold in parallel with the first two. It involves a fundamental reconfiguration of U.S. relations with both Russia and Europe. It is already evident that within the next decade, the United States will seek strategic partnerships with Russia across a range of critical areas. Over time, Europe will come to accept this cooperation. This poses a tremendous challenge for Ukraine, as the anticipated partnership will be both foundational and deep—reflecting Russia’s need to reintegrate into global political and economic systems. It will touch upon energy, logistics, natural resources, food security, defense, and technology. But this is the U.S.’s long game: a strategic course of political transformation aimed at weakening Russia—not through force, but by shifting its political DNA. Each successive Russian leader will become less “Chinese” and incrementally closer to the United States and Europe. Russia’s paradoxical strength—born from war and the projection of external threats—will be quietly eroded.
This third phase will be Ukraine’s most difficult test. During this period, both the West and Russia will move toward reconciliation and pragmatism. The United States will need to balance its interest in preserving the sovereignty of its ally Ukraine with the emerging imperative of strategic détente with Russia. Washington will seek a new model for relations with the Kremlin—one that bypasses European skepticism and pessimism. At the same time, Europe will begin to lose influence in the region. Its reactive stance and domestic political turbulence will place it in a secondary role. Ukraine, therefore, must not rely solely on European support.
In this context, the Agreement becomes Ukraine’s strategic compass. It will serve as a roadmap for navigating not only its bilateral relationship with the United States, but also its broader geopolitical orientation. Ukraine will have to demonstrate institutional maturity, economic flexibility, and political will. The country must internalize the logic of long-term deterrence and strategic patience. Any internal political instability, resurgence of oligarchic influence, or erosion of anti-corruption efforts will jeopardize the entire transformation.
The stakes are existential: Ukraine is not merely defending its sovereignty—it is constructing a new model of statehood in the post-Soviet space. If successful, it will become a precedent, a model, and a magnet for the region. But this success will depend on Ukraine’s ability to align its internal political culture with the logic of the Agreement. American support is not unconditional; it presumes progress on reforms, transparency, and accountability. Only under these conditions will the Agreement evolve from a political pact into a true strategic alliance.
The fourth and most crucial component of the Agreement is Ukraine’s “homework” in the context of these three phases.
First, Ukraine must secure accession to the European Union and assume a leadership role within it. The personal qualities and popularity of the next head of state will be of paramount importance, as will the development of strategic partnership with the United States and synchronized domestic reforms. Public trust in Ukraine’s new political elite will be a decisive factor.
Second, there must be a comprehensive cleanup of the domestic political landscape. Pro-Russian forces must be prevented from establishing new elite structures—such as labor unions or left-wing populist movements—that could eventually undermine state authority. A new political culture must be nurtured, one rooted in democratic accountability and free of endemic corruption. Social challenges must be addressed proactively—especially in terms of comprehensive support for war veterans, including the implementation of best-in-class rehabilitation, reintegration, and employment policies.
Following the Agreement and the end of the war, Ukraine must fully embrace a value-based path aligned with American principles: democracy, liberty, justice, and above all, a pragmatic and rational approach to both domestic and foreign policy. Ukraine will be expected to operate at the level of a global partner. Its internal strength and leadership role in the EU must serve as a safeguard against geopolitical turbulence and military threats.
Ukraine’s elites must act with restraint and avoid swinging the geopolitical pendulum. In this context, post-war elections will be of immense significance. At present, the United States has credible partners within Ukraine’s political leadership, as evidenced by the high-level dialogue and the Agreement itself. After the war, elections must be conducted at the highest democratic standard to maintain the confidence of Ukrainian citizens, European partners, and the international community—especially those in uniform.
It is critical that no candidates or parties be “lost” to sanctions or political pressure; all legitimate actors must be given a fair chance to compete. A major reform of the electoral law is necessary, as is the completion of decentralization and modernization of public administration and the political system. Even the smallest elements that obstruct national progress or contribute to political instability must be removed. This is key to ensuring post-war unity and trust in the new government’s strategic direction.
The Parliament must become a true legislative body—not a marketplace dominated by five factional power brokers. The government must be policy-oriented and not consumed by defending itself from meaningless party initiatives. The President must act as a true guarantor of national unity. Local communities must gain institutional representation, potentially through a second legislative chamber—as seen in the U.S. and several European states.
Control over the media must end. De-oligarchization must continue. Economic monopolies must be dismantled. Feudal remnants in local governance must be eliminated. A genuine system of meritocratic promotion must be restored—bringing the best public managers into positions of responsibility. Most importantly, following the Agreement, Ukraine—effectively granted the status of a “hybrid U.S. state”—must adopt a 50-year national development strategy, fully synchronized with American and allied priorities.
The implementation of such a strategy will define the outcome of the war—not only for Ukraine, but for the world at large. The defeat of Russia and the full restoration of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, including Crimea, will be recognized as one of the greatest geopolitical victories of the West in the 21st century.
For Ukraine, this will mark the final dismantling of the post-Soviet model and the rise of a new nation-state. For the United States, it will confirm its global leadership and strategic clarity, demonstrating that democracy and allied cooperation can prevail against authoritarian aggression.
The Agreement is not just a bilateral pact; it is a global statement of intent. It signals a long-term shift in the international order, in which Ukraine emerges as a central pillar of European and transatlantic security. The strategic partnership enshrined in this Agreement will shape not only the outcome of this war but the architecture of peace for decades to come.
Therefore, it is imperative that Ukrainian society understands the depth and magnitude of what is at stake—and what is required. The next few years will demand discipline, strategic vision, and unwavering commitment from every branch of government and every sector of society.
Victory will not come solely through military means. It will come through resilience, reform, and a shared belief in the values that unite Ukraine and the United States. This Agreement is the foundation. What is built upon it will determine the future.