There has probably never been such a public trimming in the history of diplomacy. The joint presser between the President of the United States and Ukraine President Zelensky has set the internet on fire, with condemnation of both parties, and speculation about the outcome. Zelensky was not unnaturally on edge, given that he had to explain a ‘deal' to his people. Trump was on the offensive, as was his Vice-President who felt, again, not unnaturally, that Zelensky had shown no gratitude to a President who, in fact, is the only world leader trying to end a terrible war. True, he also wants a payback in minerals, but the US and its European partners have always fought wars for resources. It's just that they don't say it upfront. Only, Trump did.
That Joint Presser
The meeting had Zelensky in his trademark camouflages, a sartorial statement rather than a necessity, since he's far from fighting on the front. A question from the audience on why he wouldn't wear a suit at a White House meeting was unbecoming, to say the least, but it does demonstrate exasperation with a comedian who brought his once-prosperous country to devastation and the world dangerously close to World War III. That's what Trump said, and he's right.
As Secretary of State Marco Rubio clearly stated, the Ukrainians had insisted on a Washington visit, with the deal not yet on the table. Far from being left out, there had been at least 10 days of negotiations and repeated conversations. Zelensky, however, chose to take on the US president and his team in a diatribe that was unnecessary as it was counter-productive. Clearly, and unsurprisingly, he was playing to the gallery. Wartime leaders rarely survive, and that includes Winston Churchill. For Zelensky, it could be far worse than just being booted out of office, given a rising far-Right presence and allegations of corruption back home.
Trump Is Also Right on Russia
The sympathy factor for Ukraine may be losing currency. True, the central argument remains that Russia invaded Ukraine. But there is considerable documentation to reinforce what President Trump said and repeated in the presser, that this was a war that should never have been fought, and that Russia never agreed to NATO expansion. There is considerable evidence that Russia was offered ‘iron-clad guarantees' that NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) would move ‘eastward', and that this was made amply clear in a 1990 memo between Secretary James Baker and his Russian counterpart Shevardnadze. These assurances continued in later years in a spate of memos and telephone calls, which, as former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director Robert Gates noted, reinforced the Soviet leaders' belief that NATO meant what it said. The whole German reunification was based on the unwritten promise that while joining NATO, the membership was designed to stabilise the continent, only.
Eventually, NATO added 14 members in the next decade. Fast forward to 1997, when there was even a NATO-Russia Founding Act intended to deliver a ‘robust partnership' between the two sides. Boris Yeltsin, in effect, agreed to the inclusion of Czechia, Poland and Hungary in the bloc, on the condition that no nuclear weapons were deployed there. But it did not explicitly say anything about more expansion. Was it a betrayal? Yes, because throughout this period, Russia was also led to believe that it could one day join NATO, a dream it had held since 1954 when it made a specific proposal.
NATO Promises and Backs Off
Throughout the 1990s, NATO-Ukraine relations steadily grew stronger, with the ‘crowning glory' coming in 2008, when it was declared that it welcomed Ukraine's (and Georgia's) “Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership”. Russia was livid, but to no avail. Then there were leaked conversations about the alleged role of America in getting a ‘friendly' government into Ukraine. The Crimea invasion followed in 2014 as a pro-Russian government was removed from power. NATO support accelerated, including the implementation of a Comprehensive Assistance Package (CAP) and military training to ‘transition' to full interoperability.
In 2017, Ukraine's constitution was changed to commit to NATO membership, which was cemented further in 2019 after the election of Zelensky. By 2022, he was asking for “accelerated membership”, arguing that a member status would amount to deterrence. Then and in subsequent NATO summits, he received a standing ovation and praise, but little else. The final betrayal was, therefore, that of Ukraine. In vain did Zelensky ask for at least a timeline for future membership. In July 2024, a NATO summit simply said, “Ukraine's future is in NATO”, but made no commitments. But then, Ukraine is used to betrayal. After all, in 1994, all major parties, including Russia, signed on to Budapest honouring Ukraine's sovereignty as it gave up the third-largest nuclear weapons stockpile. Interestingly, it also committed them “to refrain from economic coercion” of any kind. What price is a minerals agreement then?
Those Irresistible Minerals
Now, to the proposed agreement itself. Claims of huge resources seem to have arisen from a Ukrainian geological survey that points to $15 trillion worth of resources. Notably, its map places much of this in Russia-occupied territory, which means that Kyiv expects someone to get it back. But there is a pushback against all this drama from the mining industry, which argues that ‘reserves' are far from being proved, and that the whole saga is based on old Soviet-era maps that Kyiv is using in desperation.
Meanwhile, existing drafts of the agreement call for a bilateral reconstruction fund that envisages ”future monetisation of all relevant Ukrainian government-owned natural resource assets”; another interesting section says that the fund will “strive to avoid conflicts with Ukraine's obligations under its accession to the European Union”. Apparently, the EU made its own deal with Ukraine in 2021 just before the war. The pitch was made again recently, with the EU commissioner reiterating that 21 of 30 critical minerals that Europe needs are in Ukraine. That's interesting; it seems Europe has the incentive to see that Russia returns those territories. Only, that's not going to happen at a negotiating table.
Don't Count On Europe
As Europe fumes over Trump's dressing down, the facts are simple. While the UK and France have both offered troops as “second-line” peacekeepers together with a multinational force, Europe is not going to fight for Ukraine. Second, though Europeans have indeed provided more to the fight than the US—to be sure, $138.7 billion by the whole of Europe as against $119.7 billion of American money—reports show that the largest proportion of this is in loans, unlike the US, which provides grants. In sum, the richest countries on earth are unwilling to pay for the war or provide the manpower for it. That's exactly what Trump is calling out.
In sum, Trump may use a hammer to send home a point, but ending the war is beneficial to Ukraine and its people. The first step is for Zelensky to understand that he actually has no cards to play, unless the US steps up. Europe will not do much apart from offering EU membership. Any security guarantee will arise from a peacekeeping force that will put a brake on alleged Russian ambitions. Whether it will get back territory is for future negotiators to decide. But the bottom line is this: it's Zelensky who has to make the decision to end the war. His people have suffered enough. That's all the Washington meeting should have been about. The rest is embellishment. And those shiny minerals, as of now, are not even there—unless someone goes there and starts digging of course.
(Tara Kartha is a former director of the National Security Council Secretariat)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
