Image by Rogier Hoekstra from Pixabay
The geopolitical landscape surrounding the Russia-Ukraine war has shifted dramatically in recent weeks, marked by a contentious U.S.-Ukraine minerals deal, a spike in Russian aggression, and the U.S. withdrawal from peace negotiations. These developments, intertwined with the turbulent diplomacy between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky, reflect a strategic recalibration under the Trump administration—one that prioritises economic interests over traditional security guarantees.
The Trump-Zelensky Meeting: From Confrontation to Compromise
The relationship between Trump and Zelensky has been fraught since Trump returned to office. A February 2025 Oval Office meeting erupted into public acrimony when Trump accused Zelensky of “gambling with World War Three” and demanded Ukraine repay $500 billion for past U.S. aid through mineral revenues.
However, a breakthrough occurred during a private meeting at Pope Francis’s funeral in late April 2025. Photographed deep in discussion at St. Peter’s Basilica, the two leaders reportedly bridged divides, with Zelensky emphasising Ukraine’s willingness to negotiate peace and Trump softening his stance on mineral demands. This paved the way for the U.S.-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, signed on May 1, 2025. The deal grants the U.S. preferential access to Ukraine’s critical minerals (e.g., lithium, titanium, uranium) and establishes a 50/50 revenue-sharing model for future resource projects, while dropping earlier demands for retroactive repayment of aid.
The Minerals Deal: A Transactional Pivot in U.S. Foreign Policy
The U.S.-Ukraine minerals agreement exemplifies Donald Trump’s transactional diplomacy, prioritising economic leverage over traditional security alliances. The deal notably excludes explicit U.S. security guarantees for Ukraine, a concession Zelensky accepted to secure much-needed economic backing, despite leaving Kyiv exposed militarily. It concentrates instead on future resource projects, excluding existing operations like Naftogaz and tying profitability to untapped mineral deposits—such as lithium and uranium—that require years of investment to develop, given Ukraine’s outdated geological data and war-damaged infrastructure.
The text also includes provisions to align with Ukraine’s EU aspirations, permitting renegotiation if Kyiv joins the bloc, a clause aimed at avoiding conflicts with European integration goals. Trump has hailed the pact as a “historic economic partnership” to counter China’s stranglehold on critical minerals, but experts caution that immediate benefits are unlikely due to Ukraine’s logistical challenges and ongoing security risks, casting doubt on the deal’s near-term viability.
U.S. Withdrawal as Mediator: A Strategic Vacuum
Days after the minerals deal, the U.S. announced its withdrawal from mediating peace talks between Ukraine and Russia. State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce stated the U.S. would no longer “fly around the world at the drop of a hat” to facilitate negotiations, shifting responsibility to Kyiv and Moscow . Secretary of State Marco Rubio reinforced this stance, calling the conflict “not our war” and prioritising China as a long-term concern.
Amid this retreat, reports emerged in May 2025 that the U.S. State Department had drafted sanctions targeting over a dozen entities accused of supporting Russia’s war effort, including Chinese firms supplying semiconductors and logistics companies transporting weapons. However, the proposal faces an uncertain fate, as it requires approval from President Trump—a vocal skeptic of sanctions as a policy tool.
Trump’s hesitation reflects his transactional priorities. While the sanctions aim to disrupt Russia’s military-industrial complex, their implementation could jeopardize his administration’s parallel efforts to secure Chinese cooperation on trade and counter-narcotics . Critics argue that shelving the sanctions would signal impunity to Putin, further undermining Ukraine’s position. “This is a litmus test,” said former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. “Will Trump prioritise punishing Russia or maintaining leverage with Beijing?”
Putin’s Escalation: Exploiting the Diplomatic Void
Meanwhile, Russia intensified attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure and frontline positions in late April 2025, killing seven civilians in occupied territories shortly after the U.S. mediation withdrawal. Analysts suggest Putin aims to consolidate territorial gains before any peace deal, leveraging Ukraine’s weakened security posture. The Kremlin also rejected a U.S. ceasefire proposal, demanding recognition of annexed territories.
Notably, Russia’s aggression coincides with its own efforts to secure mineral deals in occupied Ukrainian regions, mirroring Trump’s resource-focused strategy.
In conclusion, the U.S.-Ukraine minerals deal underscores a high-stakes recalibration of foreign policy under Trump, where transactional economics supersede traditional alliances. Kyiv’s gamble—sacrificing security guarantees for economic investment—relies on the fragile hope that American corporate interests in critical minerals will indirectly anchor U.S. support. Yet this strategy falters amid stalled sanctions against Russia, a move that risks emboldening Putin while forcing Ukraine to lean harder on European allies for diplomatic pressure.
For Trump, the deal bolsters his “America First” legacy by prioritizing resource access and private-sector gains, but blocking sanctions threatens bipartisan rapport and weakens deterrence, exposing contradictions in his transactional approach. As Russia consolidates control over resource-rich territories, the war’s trajectory now hinges on whether profit-driven pragmatism can counterbalance geopolitical aggression—a precarious equation with ramifications for global security, energy transitions, and the future of Western solidarity.
