U.S. President Donald Trump – Zelensky-Russia relationship

Historical Context: A Rocky Triangle

• Trump: “You’re not in a good position right now—make a deal or we’re out… You’re gambling with World War III.” He accused Zelensky of disrespecting U.S. aid.
• Vance: “Have you said thank you once?” He called Zelensky’s resistance ungrateful, noting Ukraine’s conscription woes.
• Zelensky: “I’m not playing cards—I’m a wartime president… Putin killed our people.” He rejected diplomacy without guarantees.

• Alignment: Trump’s warmth toward Putin—calling him trustworthy (February 28, Oval Office)—and openness to a Russia minerals deal (February 24, state TV) suggest a tilt. His peace talks, sidelining Ukraine, echo Putin’s goal: freeze the conflict, retain occupied land.
• Motivation: Trump sees Russia as a cheaper partner—its 21 million tons of REEs (12% global reserves) dwarf Ukraine’s war-torn deposits. Ending aid aligns with his base’s fatigue (polls show 40% of GOP voters oppose Ukraine funding, Pew 2024).
• March 1 Shift: Trump’s ceasefire call (AP) and aid threat post-clash hint he’s leaning Russia’s way, testing Putin’s offer.

• Fracture: The February 28 blowout—Trump’s “you’re out” ultimatum versus Zelensky’s defiance—marks a nadir. Trump’s earlier “dictator” jab (February 19, Newsmax) and Zelensky’s Putin critique fuel mutual distrust.
• ** Minerals Stalemate**: Trump wants Ukraine’s resources (50% of future revenues proposed) as aid repayment; Zelensky sees it as leverage only with security, not a sellout. No deal leaves both empty-handed.
• U.S. Fallout: Democrats (e.g., 14 governors) decry Trump’s ally-bashing; his party splits—Graham urges Zelensky’s ouster, Rubio backs Trump.

• Existential Fight: Russia’s occupation of Ukraine’s east (25-40% of minerals) and relentless attacks (e.g., 110 drones downed March 1) aim to break Zelensky’s resistance. Putin’s ceasefire push seeks to lock in gains, which Zelensky rejects without reclaiming land or guarantees.
• Support Pivot: Post-White House, Zelensky turns to Europe—Macron, Tusk, and Meloni pledge backing—fearing U.S. retreat.

• China Link: Russia’s REE exports to China (2% global output) tie it to Beijing’s 90% processing monopoly. A U.S.-Ukraine deal threatens this; its failure relieves pressure.
• Leverage: Holding Ukraine’s eastern deposits gives Russia veto power over Western access, bolstering Putin’s hand in Trump talks.

• Rare Earths: Ukraine’s REEs (third of Europe’s) could dent China’s grip, but Russia’s occupation and Trump’s wobble keep them locked. U.S. tech/defense (e.g., 420 kg REEs per F-35) stays vulnerable.
• War Trajectory: Trump’s Russia tilt risks a frozen conflict, leaving Ukraine truncated; Zelensky’s defiance banks on Europe, but U.S. aid cuts could tip the scales.
• Global Power: Russia gains if Trump pivots; China watches, its REE dominance unchallenged for now.

The EU’s Role in the U.S.-Ukraine Minerals Deal

• Awareness of Ukraine’s Resources: The EU has long recognized Ukraine’s mineral wealth—holding 22 of the EU’s 34 critical raw materials (e.g., lithium, titanium, graphite)—as a potential asset. A 2021 EU-Ukraine memorandum outlined future mining investments, predating Trump’s deal.
• Exclusion from U.S. Talks: Trump’s minerals push (50% of Ukraine’s future resource revenues for a U.S.-led fund) initially sidelined the EU. The draft, leaked February 26, noted only that it would “strive to avoid conflicts” with Ukraine’s EU accession obligations, offering no direct EU role.

• Opportunity Seized: The February 28 Trump-Zelensky fallout—where no deal was signed due to security guarantee disputes—opened a window for the EU. Zelensky’s exit and Trump’s aid-cut threats alarmed European leaders, who saw a chance to deepen ties with Kyiv.
• Supportive Rhetoric: French President Emmanuel Macron, post-White House visit with Trump on February 24, cautiously backed the minerals concept but stressed Ukrainian sovereignty, saying, “This peace must allow Ukraine to negotiate with other stakeholders” (Al Jazeera). Polish PM Donald Tusk tweeted, “You are not alone,” signaling solidarity (February 28, X).
• EU Alternative: Unlike Trump’s aid-repayment framing, the EU has proposed its own minerals deal—generous, not demanding resource profits for past aid (CEPA, February 26). This aligns with Ukraine’s EU candidacy (granted June 2022), tying economic cooperation to integration.

• Reducing China Dependency: The EU imports 98% of its rare earths from China (EU Commission, 2023). Ukraine’s 5% of global critical minerals (e.g., 20% of graphite reserves) could diversify supply, bolstering EU tech and green energy sectors (Euronews, February 28).
• Defense Needs: French Defense Minister Sébastien Lecornu, since October 2024, has eyed Ukraine’s minerals for weapons systems over the next 30-40 years (Al Jazeera, February 28), pushing diversification from China’s 90% processing lock.

• Scale: By March 2025, the EU and its members have provided over half of Ukraine’s aid—€100 billion in military gear (e.g., Leopard tanks from Germany, missiles from France) and €100 billion in economic support (European Commission, 2025). This dwarfs Trump’s claimed $350 billion U.S. total, which includes loans and unspent funds.
• Post-Clash Boost: After February 28, EU leaders rallied. Macron offered peacekeepers for a potential truce (Reuters, February 25), and Ursula von der Leyen visited Kyiv on February 24 with a €50 billion pledge (Reuters), countering U.S. waffling.

• Summits and Solidarity: On February 24, 2025, Zelensky hosted von der Leyen, Antonio Costa, and leaders from Canada, Spain, and the Baltics in Kyiv for the invasion’s third anniversary, showcasing EU unity as U.S. officials stayed away (Reuters). Italian PM Giorgia Meloni called for a U.S.-EU summit post-clash, urging a united West (Independent, February 28).
• Contrast with Trump: Trump’s Russia talks (e.g., a 90-minute Putin call, January 2025) and exclusion of Kyiv and Europe blindsided NATO allies. The EU, via Macron and UK PM Keir Starmer, pressed Trump in Washington visits (February 24-28) to avoid a Russia-favorable deal (CNN, February 28).

• Peacekeeping: Macron’s peacekeeping proposal—accepted by Putin, per Trump (Reuters, February 25), though Kremlin denied it—positions the EU as a guarantor, filling a U.S. gap if Trump pulls back. Germany’s Friedrich Merz and Olaf Scholz back this, with Scholz calling Trump’s minerals push “egotistic” (Al Jazeera, February 27).
• NATO Bridge: With Trump opposing Ukraine’s NATO bid (echoing Russia), the EU offers a fallback—integration and bilateral security pacts (e.g., France-Ukraine, 2024)—to deter Russia.

• Economic Pressure: The EU’s 14 sanctions packages since 2022 target Russia’s oil, banks, and elites, costing Moscow €300 billion in frozen assets (European Commission, 2025). UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s February 24 package hit Russia’s “military machine” (TIME, February 24).
• Mineral Counterplay: Russia’s occupation of Ukraine’s east (25-40% of minerals) and Putin’s February 24 minerals offer to Trump aim to undercut EU-Ukraine ties. The EU resists, seeing Ukraine’s resources as a Western asset (Atlantic Council, February 26).

• EU as Foe: Deputy FM Alexander Grushko (February 18, X) said the EU’s “strategic defeat” goal for Russia excludes it from peace talks, reflecting Moscow’s view of Europe as a united adversary. Putin’s openness to European peacekeepers (Reuters, February 25) is tactical, not conciliatory.

• Appeasement: Macron’s February 24 Trump meeting yielded a nod to burden-sharing—EU defense spending may rise to 5% of GDP, per Pete Hegseth’s demand (Al Jazeera, February 28). Starmer’s UK hike (Independent, February 28) shows deference to Trump’s pressure.
• Divergence: Two UN votes (February 2025) saw the U.S. side with Russia against Europe, signaling a rift (Al Jazeera, February 28). The EU fears Trump’s Russia deal could cede Ukraine’s sovereignty, prompting a more autonomous stance.

• Integration: Ukraine’s EU candidacy ties its minerals to Brussels, not just Washington. The EU’s deal avoids Trump’s repayment trap, aligning with Kyiv’s parliament-ratified sovereignty (Euronews, February 28).
• Security Leverage: Zelensky’s post-clash pivot to Europe—backed by Macron, Tusk, and Scholz—positions the EU as his lifeline if U.S. aid falters (NBC, February 26).

• Mineral Security: With China’s 90% REE processing lock and Russia’s occupied Ukrainian deposits, the EU needs Ukraine’s 5% global share to fuel its green and defense ambitions.
• Conflict Stability: Trump’s Russia tilt risks a weak peace; the EU’s aid and peacekeeping offer a bulwark, ensuring Ukraine’s viability.
• Global Influence: As U.S. focus wanes (Hegseth: “Europe’s security isn’t our primary job,” February 12), the EU steps up, countering Russia and China while redefining transatlantic ties.

Overview of the Minerals Deal

• Origins: The idea stemmed from Zelensky’s 2024 “Victory Plan,” floated to Trump during a September 2024 Trump Tower meeting, suggesting Ukraine’s untapped resources (5% of global critical minerals) could fund its war effort and appeal to U.S. business interests.
• First Draft: On February 12, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent presented a deal in Kyiv demanding 50% of Ukraine’s future mineral revenues—covering rare earths, uranium, lithium, oil, gas, and even port earnings—go to the U.S. as repayment for past aid. It required U.S. firms to own half of Ukraine’s rare earth deposits and overrode existing trade agreements, with disputes settled in New York courts.
• Ukrainian Reaction: Zelensky rejected it, shocked by its “colonial” tone (per Ukrainian officials to The Washington Post). He argued the $500 billion figure dwarfed actual U.S. aid and lacked security pledges, saying, “One cannot count up to $500 billion and say, ‘Give us back $500 billion in minerals.’ That’s not serious” (February 19 statement).

• Adjustments: After backlash, a revised draft by February 20—presented by VP JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio—softened terms: no $500 billion lump sum, no New York jurisdiction, and no sovereignty waiver. It proposed a “Reconstruction Investment Fund” co-managed by both nations, with Ukraine contributing 50% of future state-owned resource revenues (minerals, oil, gas) for reinvestment in Ukraine.
• Security Vague: It stated the U.S. “supports Ukraine’s efforts to obtain security guarantees” but offered no specifics—critical for Zelensky, who sought NATO-like protections.
• Progress: By February 25, Ukrainian Deputy PM Olha Stefanishyna told Reuters the deal was shaping up, with Kyiv poised to approve it by February 26, pending Trump’s sign-off.

• Trump hyped it as a “trillion-dollar deal” (February 26 Cabinet meeting), claiming minerals like graphite (20% of global reserves) and titanium (7% of Europe’s supply) would repay American taxpayers while ensuring “automatic security” without NATO membership—a stance echoing Russia’s opposition to Ukraine’s NATO bid. He tied it to his peace talks with Putin, suggesting Russia wouldn’t object post-deal.

• Fund Structure: The draft, per Axios and CNN, established a joint U.S.-Ukraine “Reconstruction Investment Fund.” Ukraine would contribute 50% of revenues from future monetization of state-owned natural resources (minerals, hydrocarbons, ports) after operating costs, excluding current revenue sources like Naftogaz. Funds would be reinvested annually into Ukrainian projects—mines, infrastructure, ports—aiming for economic stability.
• U.S. Stake: The U.S. would hold the maximum financial interest allowed under American law (not necessarily 50%), with details to be finalized by Treasury, Commerce, and Vance’s office alongside Ukraine’s Economy Ministry.
• Key Minerals: Ukraine’s reserves include:
  • Graphite: 20% of global supply, vital for EV batteries and nuclear reactors.
  • Titanium: 7% of Europe’s reserves, used in aerospace and defense (e.g., tanks, planes).
  • Lithium: A third of Europe’s deposits, key for batteries.
  • Rare Earths: 22 of 34 EU-critical minerals, though less dominant than China’s 75%.
• No Debt Repayment: Unlike the initial draft, it didn’t frame past aid as a debt (e.g., $100-350 billion), focusing on future revenue sharing—a concession Zelensky hailed as “not debtors” (February 26 press conference).
• Security Clause: Remained vague—“U.S. supports Ukraine’s efforts” for peace guarantees—falling short of Zelensky’s demand for concrete commitments.

• U.S. Goals: Reduce reliance on China (90% of rare earth processing) for tech and defense supply chains. Much of Ukraine’s mineral wealth (e.g., Donetsk, Luhansk) lies in Russian-occupied east, complicating extraction but raising stakes.
• Ukraine’s Needs: Reconstruction funds for war-ravaged infrastructure (half its power capacity destroyed, per CSIS) and a deterrent against Russia, which controls key deposits.
• Challenges: Mining is energy-intensive, and Ukraine’s grid is battered. No modern geological surveys exist—Soviet-era maps from 30-60 years ago lack commercial viability data (depth, ore grade).

• Meeting Breakdown: At the White House, Trump pushed for a quick signature, calling it “very fair,” while Zelensky demanded security clarity. The discussion turned into a shouting match—Trump accused Zelensky of ingratitude and risking WWIII, Zelensky insisted on wartime realities, not “card games.” No deal was signed; Zelensky left by 1:41 p.m. EST.
• Trump’s Take: Post-meeting, he claimed on Truth Social that Zelensky wasn’t ready for peace and had disrespected the U.S., suggesting aid cuts if Ukraine didn’t comply.
• Zelensky’s Stance: He thanked America on X but stressed a “just and lasting peace,” later telling Fox News he respected Trump but needed serious security talks, not public spats.

• No Agreement: The deal remains unsigned, stalled by the security gap. Trump’s team may refine it, but his threats to exit aid signal leverage tactics.
• Details Unresolved: Revenue timelines, exact U.S. share, and project specifics (e.g., which mines) are TBD, pending further talks. Extraction feasibility hinges on war’s end—Russian-held areas hold much of the wealth.
• Global Ripple: Europe fears U.S. disengagement; Russia sees an edge. Ukraine’s parliament must still approve any final text, per Zelensky.

Rare earths importance