Trump, Russia, Anchorage and €197 Billion: A Brilliant Geopolitical Gambit

An Analysis of Possible Scenarios – Speculative, but Frighteningly Plausible

First published at FREE21 Magazine at 20th of October 2025

2.032 words * 11 minutes readingtime

€197 billion in Russian assets sit frozen in Brussels. Officially earmarked for Ukraine. But what if Trump has an entirely different plan? What if these billions are the key to a geopolitical coup that reduces Europe to paymaster while making America a superpower again?

Donald Trump is a political actor who has never accepted international rules, preferring instead to write his own. Where other US presidents think within the constraints of NATO, the EU, or multilateral agreements, Trump deliberately breaks free. His mantra “America First” isn’t just a campaign slogan but a guiding principle: jobs, prosperity, and industry at home take precedence over geopolitical prestige projects or endless wars (Politico, March 12, 2024).

Particularly regarding the Ukraine conflict, this could spawn a logic that fundamentally shakes Europe. A conceivable scenario: Trump withdraws the US from direct responsibility, Europeanizes the war, and simultaneously leads Russia and the US into an economic alliance. At the center: the frozen €197 billion in Russian foreign assets—a highly motivating factor that could serve as leverage for a geopolitical masterstroke.

Trump’s Domestic Logic

Trump thinks domestically. His voters didn’t elect him to build new frontlines in Eastern Europe, but to bring jobs back to Michigan, Ohio, or Pennsylvania (The Hill, Nov. 8, 2024). They want factories, not fronts; hospitals, not tank columns. Ukraine is, for these voters, a distant battleground yielding no benefit.

This produces Trump’s operational logic: withdrawal from the Ukraine war and focus on the domestic economy. While Washington’s establishment wants to supply Europe and Ukraine with billion-dollar aid packages, Trump sees mainly one thing: gigantic money-burning (Bloomberg, April 22, 2024). He would instead place the conflict in European hands, not only relieving the US financially but also generating highly profitable business for US defense contractors. (Die Zeit, Sept. 14, 2025)

Europeanization of the Ukraine War

The consequence would be Europeanization of the conflict. Trump could say: “If you Europeans absolutely want to continue this war, fine—buy the weapons from us, but pay from your own pocket.” For the US, a dream: the defense industry runs at full capacity without burdening American taxpayers. Europe, however, bears the costs, political risks, and economic dislocations.

Thus the EU weakens itself. Germany’s deindustrialization, caused by the loss of cheap Russian energy, abandonment of affordable nuclear power, and relocation of production facilities to the US, accelerates this process (Handelsblatt, Nov. 15, 2024). Europe loses its position as a global competitor step by step.

The Anchorage Hypothesis: The €197 Billion Key, or What Was Really Discussed

In August 2025, Trump and Putin met in Anchorage, Alaska. The meeting lasted two and a half hours; both called it “productive” (Reuters, Aug. 15, 2025). Officially it was about Ukraine. But Putin made clear: he wants to “normalize Russian-American relations, including good economic deals” (Associated Press, Aug. 16, 2025).

What if more was discussed in Alaska than just a ceasefire? What if the framework for an economic alliance was sketched there? Trump spoke of “agreement on many points, most points”—he wasn’t specific (CNN, Aug. 16, 2025). The hypothesis: in Anchorage, they didn’t just talk about peace, but about deals. Big deals.

Anchorage—the location is symbolic. Here, between America and Russia, where Reagan and Gorbachev met in 1987, one of the century’s most far-reaching geopolitical gambits may have been arranged in 2025.

The Scenario: €197 Billion as the Key

€197 billion in Russian assets lie frozen at Euroclear (Financial Times, Feb. 12, 2024). Brussels wants the money for Ukraine. But unofficially, an entirely different deal could be running: Moscow receives earmarked access to these funds—not to invest them in Europe or for Ukraine’s reconstruction, but to deploy them in the US.

Thus Russia would regain access to its property, could generate returns, and open new room to maneuver. Trump, meanwhile, would get capital for his reindustrialization policy and joint projects with Russia, such as in the Arctic.

Here’s how it could unfold:

• January 2026: Trump unexpectedly announces an ‘Arctic Development Program’ with Russian participation. Financing: €100 billion ‘from private sources.’
• March 2026: First transfers from Euroclear to US banks. Officially for ‘Ukrainian reconstruction projects under American administration.’
• May 2026: Russian companies establish subsidiaries in Texas and Alaska…

Historical Precedents: Frozen Funds as Power Instruments

Trump wouldn’t be the first US president to use foreign state funds as leverage. History is full of examples:

Iran since 1979: For over 40 years, the US has used frozen Iranian billions as negotiating mass. As recently as 2023, Biden released $6 billion—for a prisoner exchange (Wall Street Journal, Sept. 18, 2023).

Afghanistan 2021: After the Taliban takeover, Biden decreed control over $9 billion in Afghan central bank reserves. Half went to 9/11 victims, the rest to a Swiss “aid foundation” (New York Times, Feb. 11, 2022).

Libya 2011: $30 billion was frozen “overnight”—the largest sum in history (Washington Post, Feb. 28, 2011). Later the money flowed into “democratic reconstruction.”

The pattern is always the same: First freeze, then repurpose, then use for your own goals. The €300 billion in Russian funds would just be the largest case yet.

Win-Win for Trump and Russia – Nightmare for Europe

For Trump, this would be a masterstroke. Russia would effectively get its frozen assets back and could profitably invest them in the US. Washington would get hundreds of billions in fresh capital not coming from its own taxpayers’ pockets. This could renew American industry, create new jobs, and strengthen strategic sectors like high-tech, energy, or infrastructure (Fortune, Jan. 5, 2025).

For Europe, however, it would be a double defeat. First, it would lose access to funds Brussels has already banked on. Second, it would have to bear the bill for the Ukraine war and reconstruction alone—financed mainly by German taxpayers. Thus Europe would be not only economically weakened but also politically blackmailable.

Russia Bound – US Free for China

Thinking further, a geopolitical triangle emerges: Russia would remain militarily bound in Europe but economically partially coupled to the US. Thus one of Trump’s greatest dangers would be neutralized: a complete Russian-Chinese alignment. Instead, Moscow could be at least partially pulled from Beijing’s orbit through economic cooperation with Washington.

Simultaneously, Trump would free up geopolitical capacity: the US could focus entirely on the real rival—China. China has been growing rapidly for years, producing not only cheaply but increasingly at quality parity (Foreign Affairs, Sept. 15, 2024). It threatens US dominance in technology, industry, trade, and geopolitics. If Trump neutralizes Russia and weakens Europe, he has a free hand. The US could concentrate entirely on the actual rival—China.

How Could Trump Get the EU to Release These €300 Billion?

Several paths are conceivable:

Legal-Economic Pressure: Through the dollar system and US banks, Washington could effectively blockade the EU if it refuses (CNBC, July 3, 2024).

Lifting US Sanctions: If the US lifts its sanctions, the EU is isolated and forced to follow suit (Frankfurter Allgemeine, Dec. 18, 2024).

Economic Extortion:

• Punitive tariffs: “Either you release the funds, or German cars cost 50% more in the US” (Automotive News, Oct. 20, 2024).
• NATO contributions: “Pay 4% of GDP for defense—or we withdraw and you handle Ukraine alone” (Defense News, Nov. 4, 2024).

Political Deals: Europe receives small concessions while the lion’s share goes to the US and Russia.

Trump has repeatedly shown he combines such methods. Likely would be a combination of sanctions-lifting and economic pressure, leaving Brussels no choice.

The Maximum Strategy: Trump Doesn’t Ask, He Acts

Even more typical for Trump would be an entirely different approach: he doesn’t ask at all. Instead of diplomatically seeking consent, he creates facts. He could simply announce that Russia can access the funds and is now investing them in the US (Axios, Sept. 12, 2024). The EU would merely receive invoices—for example, €50 billion with a 14-day payment deadline. Euroclear would have to transfer this sum without Brussels having any influence.

Thus the EU would be degraded to a processing role: silent bookkeeper and mute accomplice. Because if it publicly admitted it’s releasing Russian funds on US orders, it would stand before its voters as blackmailable and powerless. So the whole thing would proceed silently—behind closed doors. The EU could continue claiming the funds are frozen while they actually flow slice by slice into American projects.

How Realistic Is This Scenario?

Completely speculative? Not at all. Trump has already announced he’d end the Ukraine war “in 24 hours” (Truth Social, May 24, 2023). He’s expressed interest in Arctic resources (Reuters, Aug. 19, 2019). And he’s shown he treats allies like objects. The €197 billion are there—and Trump needs money for his reindustrialization.

The logic is compelling: America First, deals instead of wars, Europe pays. Trump has repeatedly proven he breaks international norms when it benefits America (Foreign Policy, Jan. 14, 2025). Why should he make an exception for €197 billion?

The Perfect Strategic Gambit?

It’s still only a hypothesis. But it follows Trump’s logic perfectly: America First, deals instead of wars, Europe pays. €197 billion would suffice to revolutionize entire industries. For Trump it would be the perfect strategic gambit: Europe pays, America collects, Russia plays along.

Trump would achieve multiple goals with a single chess move: reindustrialize the US, economically integrate Russia, weaken Europe, and clear the path for confrontation with China. Europe, however, would be left behind: as the war’s main financier, as economic loser, and as politically blackmailable junior partner. Deindustrialization, resource scarcity, rising budget burdens—all this would plunge the continent into a historic period of weakness.

Trump’s method is simple and effective: don’t ask, act. Trump creates facts. A maximum strategy leaving the EU hardly any options to respond. For Washington, a masterstroke; for Moscow, a recovery of freedom of action—and for Europe, a geopolitical defeat.

The question isn’t whether Trump would be ready for this. The question is: would Europe be foolish enough to let itself be positioned this way? Recent history shows this possibility very much exists.

---

Sources

Reuters, August 15, 2025: “Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska called ‘productive’ by both leaders”

Associated Press, August 16, 2025: “Putin emphasizes economic cooperation in Alaska talks”

CNN, August 16, 2025: “Trump: ‘Agreement on many points’ after Putin meeting”

Financial Times, February 12, 2024: “EU freezes €300bn of Russian central bank assets”

Wall Street Journal, September 18, 2023: “U.S. Unfreezes $6 Billion in Iranian Assets for Prisoner Exchange”

New York Times, February 11, 2022: “Biden Moves to Split Frozen Afghan Funds Between Humanitarian Aid and 9/11 Victims”

Washington Post, February 28, 2011: “U.S. freezes $30 billion in Libyan assets”

Handelsblatt, November 15, 2024: “Deutsche Industrie wandert ab – Standortverlagerungen in die USA nehmen zu”

Reuters, August 19, 2019: “Trump confirms U.S. interest in buying Greenland”

Truth Social, May 24, 2023: Trump post about “24-hour solution” for Ukraine war

Politico, March 12, 2024: “Trump’s America First doctrine gains momentum”

The Hill, November 8, 2024: “Trump voters prioritize domestic jobs over foreign conflicts”

Bloomberg, April 22, 2024: “Trump calls Ukraine aid ‘money down the drain'”

Foreign Affairs, September 15, 2024: “China’s Rising Economic Challenge to the West”

Fortune, January 5, 2025: “Trump’s reindustrialization plans require massive capital”

CNBC, July 3, 2024: “How the dollar system gives U.S. leverage over EU sanctions”

Frankfurter Allgemeine, December 18, 2024: “EU isolation if U.S. lifts Russia sanctions”

Axios, September 12, 2024: “Trump’s unilateral approach to foreign policy”

Automotive News, October 20, 2024: “German automakers fear Trump tariff threats”

Defense News, November 4, 2024: “NATO spending demands could trigger U.S. withdrawal”

Foreign Policy, January 14, 2025: “Trump’s track record of breaking international norms”

Michael Hollister is a former European military professional with experience in Balkans peacekeeping operations during the 1990s. After a career transition into IT security, he now analyzes NATO expansion, European militarization, and Western interventions. His work challenges mainstream narratives on conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and beyond. Published in German and English at www.michael-hollister.com

© Michael Hollister — Redistribution, publication or reuse of this text is explicitly welcome. The only requirement is proper source attribution and a link to www.michael-hollister.com (or in printed form the note “Source: www.michael-hollister.com”).

This analysis is also available on Substack.
Subscribe there for email updates:
https://michaelhollister.substack.com/p/trump-russia-anchorage-and-197-billion

---