Striking a deal: What Zelenskyy brings to Trump and prospects for talks with Russia

Contents

• Why conflict over agreement starts
• "Peace through strength" against Ukraine
• What comes next in peace negotiations

"Is this already the worst-case scenario for us?" - RBC-Ukraine has been asking various sources within the Ukrainian government and European diplomatic circles this question over the past few days. The reasons for concern were obvious: Donald Trump was verbally attacking Volodymyr Zelenskyy daily, the American President’s allies outright refused to acknowledge Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, and at the UN, the US and Russia found themselves on the same side for the first time in many years.

The responses ranged from "Yes, this is the worst-case scenario" to "No, not yet the worst - so far, they're just talking, but the worst will come when real actions begin."

In the end, the main issue of the past few weeks was resolved - the agreement between the US and Ukraine on natural resources will indeed be signed. The worst-case scenario was avoided - perhaps only temporarily.

Why conflict over agreement starts

Trump ran for office with two main concrete promises in foreign policy: to end the wars in the Gaza Strip and in Ukraine. He largely succeeded in Gaza, even before officially taking office.

With Ukraine, things turned out to be more complicated, and even Trump and his allies began to acknowledge this. "Peace in 24 hours" disappeared from his rhetoric, replaced by increasingly vague and prolonged timelines.

However, it was crucial for Trump to show some kind of result regarding Ukraine. Preferably, one that sharply contrasted with the results of his predecessor, Joe Biden, with whom the current Head of the White House continues his indirect competition.

Trump ultimately embraced an idea that had been voiced long before the election by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham - Ukraine has large reserves of rare earth metals, they must be protected from Russian occupation, and joint extraction represents a shared US-Ukrainian interest. In this form, the idea found its way into Zelenskyy's victory plan in October.

However, in Trump’s understanding, the essence of the proposal was completely distorted: it was not that the US should protect Ukraine and its resources so that they wouldn’t fall into enemy hands, but rather that Ukraine owed the US hundreds of billions of dollars for the aid provided under Biden, and now it would compensate the US using its natural wealth.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, photo: Vitalii Nosach / RBC-Ukraine

Soon, the "negotiation-related" US-Ukrainian discourse completely shifted to discussions about the "mineral agreement" - instead of talks on security guarantees, peacekeepers, territorial control, ceasefire conditions, or peace itself.

The first strike came a few days before the Munich Conference when US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent personally brought the draft agreement to Kyiv and insisted on its immediate approval. Ukraine took some time to consider it.

According to RBC-Ukraine’s sources, the Americans were highly optimistic about signing the "agreement" in Munich - and were very disappointed when it turned out that Ukraine saw its terms completely differently. Clearly, aligning the positions would take time.

However, many sources within the Ukrainian delegation reported leaving Munich in a relatively good mood. One reason was that their first direct contact with Trump’s team, led by Vice President JD Vance, went quite well, and the initial pressure regarding the "agreement" was - at least at the time - successfully held back.

"Peace through strength" against Ukraine

However, as it turned out within a few days, Trump had a very different perspective on the matter. The American president launched a powerful attack on his Ukrainian counterpart, calling him a "dictator," speculating about "Zelenskyy's 4% approval rating," and almost in direct text demanding elections in Ukraine. Other members of his administration echoed the same rhetoric. Some of their statements, without knowing the authorship, could have easily been attributed to Russian officials or propagandists.

At the same time, behind the scenes in political circles, discussions about the "worst-case scenario" were in full swing - the possibility of a complete halt in US support. During negotiations, Ukraine was made clearly aware: No agreement on natural resources - no aid. RBC-Ukraine’s sources agreed that while this would not have led to an immediate collapse on the front lines, Ukraine could have held out for some months - but the fight would have ultimately been doomed to failure.

Essentially, the Trump administration turned Kyiv’s "peace through strength" concept completely on its head, just as it had done with Senator Graham’s idea about natural resources. They preferred to apply "strength" against Ukraine instead. This stood in stark contrast to their pointedly neutral - if not outright positive - remarks about the aggressor state (which Trump’s allies flatly refused to call as such).

This is why both Ukraine’s European allies and representatives of the Ukrainian government hoped that the "agreement" could still be signed - the only question was what its contents would be and how much of America’s demands could be curbed.

Judging by the final text of the document, Ukraine indeed managed to avoid taking on any concrete obligations, particularly not recognizing the so-called "debt" to the US for previously supplied aid.

Ukrainian and American delegations in Munich, photo: president.gov.ua

At the same time, Trump gained an opportunity to "sell" this agreement favorably to his own electorate, using the narrative: "Biden was giving away your money - I’m bringing it back to you, with interest." In fact, the American President has already started doing so, claiming that "this agreement will bring us great wealth." Meanwhile, the leading Republican television network, Fox News, titled its broadcast yesterday: "Trump TAKES BACK taxpayer money given to Ukraine!"

What comes next in peace negotiations

If the agreement signing in Washington goes successfully, an obvious question will arise: what comes next, now that the "mineral" problem has been resolved? This, of course, will be the main topic of discussion between Trump and Zelenskyy in Washington.

It is evident that Trump will now begin pushing the warring sides toward a ceasefire. This is the first element of his scheme: "ceasefire – elections in Ukraine – final peace agreement."

And with the same success that Trump presents a rather general mineral resources deal as the "deal of the century" that will bring Americans "great wealth," he will present the ceasefire as the "end of the war." The principle is the same: "Under Biden, hundreds of thousands of Russians and Ukrainians were dying, but under me, the dying stopped."

The specific parameters of the peace agreement - practical issues such as control over specific territories, the presence or absence of a demilitarized zone, the mandate and number of peacekeepers, monitoring of the ceasefire, and so on - do not concern Trump at all. This is confirmed by all sources without exception in Ukraine and the EU. For him, the main thing is that "there’s no shooting."

Meanwhile, these parameters will determine how sustainable the peace will be. In Kyiv, as in other European capitals, this is well understood, given the experience of the ATO/JFO and the Minsk agreements.

That is why the Ukrainian delegation will push back against a "ceasefire without any conditions" even more vigorously than against recognizing a multibillion-dollar "debt" to the US.

Trump, in turn, will again push his vision as hard as he can. The difference from the "minerals" story is that a ceasefire, by definition, requires the consent not only of Ukraine but also of Russia.

Therefore, the stance Trump and his allies take toward the aggressor country will be revealing: will it be as harsh a public pressure campaign as against Ukraine in the mineral resources deal, or will the "honeymoon" in Washington-Moscow relations continue?

A number of RBC-Ukraine sources have speculated that the US and Russia have already reached some kind of common, framework, even "gentleman’s" agreement that the war, in general, should be ended and that all the events of recent weeks have been aimed at implementing it

A test case could have been the events at the UN earlier this week, where the US and Russia, with their deliberately "neutral" approach, first lost to Ukraine and Europe at the General Assembly and then took revenge at the Security Council meeting.

Europe, which has de facto become Ukraine’s only relatively reliable ally under the current conditions, has been trying to demonstrate its subjectivity since the Munich Conference. It doesn’t always succeed - for example, France and the UK had every opportunity to block the US resolution at the Security Council but chose not to, hiding behind obvious excuses.

However, given that Ukraine has no guarantees of US support and that "transatlantic unity" is bursting at the seams, Europe - even involuntarily - is forced to take a proactive stance. Next week, a major military aid package for Ukraine, comparable to previous US assistance, is expected to be approved. There are also active discussions about a sharp increase in spending on European defense. Although in the medium and long term, Kyiv will likely have to rely not so much on the EU as a whole (where at least Hungary has veto power) but rather on "coalitions of the willing" - situational alliances of individual European countries with shared approaches to specific issues.

Donald Trump, Emmanuel Macron, and Volodymyr Zelenskyy at a meeting in Paris (photo: Getty Images)

However, speculation about a secret agreement between the Americans and Russians may prove unfounded. For example, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has openly contradicted Trump’s statements, saying that Russia does not agree to a ceasefire now, that Moscow opposes NATO peacekeepers on Ukrainian territory, and so on.

According to one of RBC-Ukraine’s European sources, speaking a month after Trump’s election victory, the real chance to avoid the worst-case scenario may lie in the stupidity, stubbornness, arrogance, and inflexibility of the Russians. In other words, the very things that ruined their plans in 2014 and 2022.

But the next key developments will not take place in Moscow but in Washington, at the meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy. The key conflict lines have already been drawn. Zelenskyy has explicitly stated that there will be no truce without security guarantees. Trump insists that Europe should provide the guarantees. Europe, in turn, is not ready to do so without US support - and no guarantees are possible at all without American involvement.

As a result, Zelenskyy will still manage to meet with Trump as President before Putin does, which is a good thing in itself. But at the same time, even Trump himself is no longer entirely sure that he will necessarily succeed in achieving peace.