Maq Masi Blog

Author’s Note: The following article reflects personal observations and reflections on recent geopolitical and economic events. It is not intended to accuse any government or institution of wrongdoing, but rather to invite critical discussion on the nature of global economic systems, policy decisions, and the human consequences they entail. The aim is to contribute meaningfully to democratic dialogue and promote ethical awareness in matters of international policy.

It appears that when GDP no longer grows from genuine demand, it grows from inflating prices. This is the realisation that struck me, and once seen, it’s difficult to unsee.

While the International Monetary Fund and World Bank do not directly control sovereign nations, their recommendations and lending conditions deeply influence economic policy, especially in times of crisis. Their overarching goal, often framed as “global stability,” is measured through GDP growth. But if there is no real growth in output or consumption, how is that stability maintained?

By raising prices.

War and tariffs have become economic tools. This sounds blunt, even cynical. But consider what has happened over the past few years. The war in Ukraine, devastating in human terms, also triggered a global fuel crisis. Europe, particularly Germany and France, had long depended on Russian gas. It was efficient, cheap, and essential to their industrial economies. And yet, when war broke out, Europe sanctioned Russian energy, then turned to the United States for liquified natural gas (LNG) at significantly higher prices.

This decision hurt their people and their businesses. It pushed inflation upward and forced industries to contract. But paradoxically, GDP survived. On paper, it even grew. Why? Because the cost of everything,from fuel to food to fertiliser,went up. The growth wasn’t real. It was the arithmetic of crisis.

Now we are watching the next act: tariffs.

President Trump, now in his second term in 2025, has implemented a universal 10% import tariff, and far more severe measures against China, ranging from 60% to 145%. The logic is protectionist. The outcome, however, is inflationary. Consumers pay more for imported goods. Supply chains fracture. Prices rise. And again, GDP grows on paper—not because Americans are consuming more, but because they are paying more for less.

This raises the deeper question: Is this all theatre? When growth falters, and productivity slows, do governments resort to managed crises to sustain the illusion of economic dynamism?

Military aid to Ukraine, under Biden, was framed as a moral duty. But under Trump, we now hear a new story: that the aid was not a gift, but a loan. The talk has turned to repayment—not in cash, but in resources. The United States has secured lucrative mineral deals in Ukraine, ostensibly as compensation for its support. On 30 April 2025, the United States and Ukraine signed a formal minerals agreement establishing a joint investment fund for Ukraine’s reconstruction. The deal grants U.S. companies access to critical mineral resources such as lithium and rare earth elements, essential for green energy and high-tech industries. While this partnership is strategically significant, its practical outcomes depend heavily on peace and the development of refining infrastructure, much of which is currently lacking or located in contested territories.. One example includes the strategic interest shown by U.S. firms in Ukraine’s Polokhivske lithium deposit, one of Europe’s largest. This raises a pressing question: was mineral wealth a background motive all along? Did the war, in part, mask a resource acquisition strategy?

If so, the ethical implications are grave. To cloak mineral extraction in the language of liberation is to turn suffering into strategy. It also reflects a broader pattern: that economic leverage is increasingly exercised not through markets, but through managed instability. War, then reconstruction. Crisis, then tariff. And behind it all, a global economy kept afloat not by innovation or demand, but by the manufactured scarcity of essential goods.

GDP becomes not a measure of progress, but of manipulation.

For small businesses, consumers, and vulnerable economies, this is more than a theory. It’s felt in every utility bill, every imported product, every rising cost of living. And yet the narrative rarely changes. We are told to support sanctions, to prepare for tariff battles, to expect tighter belts—because “stability” must be preserved.

But whose stability is it, really?

This morning, I heard the media amplifying rhetoric around a possible nuclear strike by Russia. A journalist asked President Putin directly about such an attack. His reply was clear: there is no need. Yet prominent headlines continue to amplify nuclear rhetoric despite Putin’s recent comment that he ‘hopes there will be no need’ to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Outlets like Euractiv and PBS reported his statement calmly. However, The Telegraph ran a headline on the same day titled “Nuclear war could be Putin’s only option”, suggesting a much graver scenario. This pattern posing hypothetical threats to frame provocative narratives has become common in wartime journalism. It makes fear a product and sells uncertainty as news.

Because people, generally, do not want war. They fear it. They resist it. But the system, the global economic system can do anything for its survival. It can shape narratives, escalate tensions, and distort perception if that is what it takes to maintain dominance.

In moments like this, I remember Karl Marx. He worried about this system. He prophesied its self-destructive trajectory. Today, we may not agree with all his prescriptions, but his diagnosis still echoes: when the logic of capital overrides the logic of humanity, even peace becomes a threat to profit.

If we are to build a better future, we must first see this system clearly: not as a conspiracy, but as a pattern of choices made by those who conflate growth with control. Only then can we begin to imagine an economic model that rewards demand not through scarcity, but through creativity, collaboration, and genuine human need.