Trump mineral deal with Ukraine offers hope but little in the way of security

If you want to get an idea of how Donald Trump’s mind works (and this can change from day to day, as we know), it’s worth taking a look at his TruthSocial website. As I write, beneath a video pinned to the top of his feed featuring an AI-generated vision of “Trump Gaza” (complete with casinos, shopping malls and a giant golden statue of the man himself), can be found a clue to the frenetic presidential activity of the past month.

In a post threatening legal action against any writer or publisher whose “Fake books” offends, Trump refers to himself as “a President who is being given credit for having the Best Opening Month of any President in history”. Apparently George Washington is second on that list – and, given that Potus #1 took 33 days to sign the first bill passed under the new US constitution, you could say Potus #47 has left him trailing in his wake.

Of course #47 appears to face fewer constitutional constraints than his illustrious predecessor.

Sadly, though, Trump will be unable to include in this list the deal he has reportedly just struck with Volodymyr Zelensky which swaps a share in Ukraine’s mineral wealth for an as yet unspecified security guarantee.

Precise details of this deal aren’t confirmed. But we’re told that the original US$500 billion (£394 billion) demand has been dropped in return for a share in an investment fund into which Ukraine will contribute 50% of the revenue from its mineral resources. “What better could you have for Ukraine than to be in an economic partnership with the United States?” commented US national security adviser, Mike Waltz.

Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

But for the sake of social media, a deal’s a deal and can be trumpeted as such. Zelensky is heading to Washington to sign the agreement and we shall find out in due course whether or not this will assure Ukraine’s future security. There is still the actual peace deal with Russia to work out, after all.

Another landmark foreign policy deal brokered by the Trump White House was with the Taliban in 2020 and concerned the future of Afghanistan. And, as Philip A. Berry writes, Zelensky can take little comfort in that.

Berry, a research fellow at King’s College London, who has extensive experience of working with anti-narcotics agencies in Afghanistan, points to similarities in the way Trump managed negotiations with the Taliban and his deal-making with Ukraine and discussions so far with Russia. The Afghan government was largely cut out of the negotiations, as Trump has threatened to do to Ukraine with regards a peace deal. And like the current situation, Trump’s regular public utterances seriously undermined the talks. Berry concludes:

Trump’s Taliban deal excluded the US’s ally, conceded too much to an adversary, and was partly motivated by the perception of wasting American dollars in a far-off land. Unfortunately, these hallmarks are all too evident in the president’s stance on Ukraine. Zelensky can only hope that things work out better this time around.

Trust will be absolutely vital if the US and Ukraine are to conclude this agreement and, more critically, if they are to reach terms with Russia that will guarantee the “just peace deal” that Zelensky craves, writes David J. Wilcox of the University of Birmingham. Wilcox points to the relationship of trust built by Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan in the 1980s which paved a way for a series of nuclear weapons reduction treaties between the Soviet Union and the US.

It has just been announced that preparations are being made for “expert-level” talks between the US and Russia, but, as Wilcox points out, “any negotiations to end the war will rest ultimately on those two states and their leaders”. And at present, nothing has been publicly said about whether Putin and Zelensky have even agreed to meet.

Meanwhile, what do we know about Ukraine’s mineral wealth and what sort of return Trump can expect for the US? Dafydd Townley, an expert in international security at the University of Portsmouth, stresses that Trump’s recent decision to impose punitive tariffs against Beijing has closed off China as a source of key minerals on which the US has been reliant up until now.

It’s a clue, writes Townley, as to why the US president seemed very keen on bringing his deal-making facilities to bear on Greenland, which also has large deposits of desirable minerals.

Interestingly, as Townley points out, Russia has taken control of about 20% of Ukraine’s mineral deposits under the territory it now controls (which America would be open to exploiting according to an offer made by Vladimir Putin’s aides at the recent talks in Saudi Arabia).

It’s also worth noting that Ukraine’s extraction sector has suffered over the past decade from chronic under-investment, thanks to the ongoing hostilities between Russia and Ukraine. As a result it could be some years before the US gets what it needs from the deal it has reportedly struck with Kyiv.

Three long years

Amid all the shuttle diplomacy and wheeler-dealing taking place around them, at the start of the week the embattled Ukrainian population marked the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion. They were joined by more than a dozen foreign leaders who gathered in Kyiv to express their continuing support.

As the conflict moves into its fourth year, Stefan Wolff, an international security expert at the University of Birmingham, takes a look at the broader geopolitical implications of the conflict in the era of Trump.

He sees worrying parallels with the Munich conference of 1938 which sealed Czechoslovakia’s fate. Not, as you might expect, in terms of Trump’s apparent appeasement of Putin – but because, like Munich, talks on the fate of a sovereign nation are being held without that nation being present. Wolff writes:

There is every indication that Putin is unlikely to stop in or with Ukraine. And it is worth remembering that the second world war started 11 months after Neville Chamberlain thought he had secured “peace in our time”.

This, of course, is the prospect that has both terrified and stiffened the resolve of Ukraine’s western allies. But Wolff also points to limitations in this analogy, in that he doesn’t believe that Trump is acting out of fear that he is in a weaker position than Putin, as did Neville Chamberlain and the French prime minister Édouard Daladier.

It’s rather that Trump sees himself as part of a triumvirate of world leaders, along with Putin and China’s president, Xi Jinping, who have the opportunity to carve out spheres of influence and establish a new world order based on the exercise of raw power.

Richard Youngs, meanwhile, sees the dawning of what he calls a “no world order”. Youngs, an international relations expert at the University of Warwick, sees an era of flux, where the stability of the past 80 years is disintegrating without anything stable or concrete to replace it.

Several European leaders, including Keir Starmer who is today visiting Trump in Washington, are due to meet this Sunday ahead of a bigger defence summit in Brussels next week, to continue discussions about how to respond to the changing Ukraine situation. Reports suggest a European defence bank or fund that would include the UK may be on the cards.

Youngs certainly believes that European powers will need to consider practical measures in order to bind themselves into more cohesive relationship and ensure their continuing autonomy. One of those will be in boosting their defence capabilities – something that is now gathering pace in the face of US pressure.

But more radical thinking will be needed, writes Youngs, who has coined the term “geoliberalism” as a way of visualising the sort of thinking about the values and certainties that can bind Europe together in the face of global turbulence.

Alex Titov, meanwhile, believes that for all the talk of “deals” to end the violence, both sides have their reasons for wanting to continue, given that their stated positions remain diametrically opposed and irreconcilable.

Russia’s battlefield progress, while steady, is slow and there’s no real prospect of it forcing a capitulation from Kyiv in the next 12 months. But – particularly with the radically different US position under Donald Trump, neither is there any chance of Russia being forced off the territory it has captured. Ominously, Titov concludes, this could mean that “the bloodiest battles of the war are yet to come”.

A new way of governing

After a whirlwind first month, Trump held his first cabinet meeting this week, with a special appearance from his right-hand man Elon Musk, who reportedly got to speak more than anyone else. Musk, of course, has been responsible for much of the maelstrom of activity that has caused so much disquiet and is providing a lot of work for lawyers who are pushing back against many of the new adminstration’s measures on the grounds they are unconstitutional.

Musk, Trump and his vice-president J.D. Vance have, in turn, pushed back against judges who have issued injunctions to either halt or delay some of their measures. Musk, in a fit of pique this week when three judges halted three of the administration’s policies, complained bitterly “What is the point of having democratic elections if unelected activist ‘judges’ can override the clear will of the people? Well, that’s no democracy at all!”

Stephen Lovell, professor of modern history at King’s College London, has been looking at the way that Trump and his team are attempting to bend the US constitution to their will, comparing their approach to that of Vladimir Putin. Putin, as we know, never saw a constitutional loophole he didn’t want to wriggle through or otherwise obliterate.

World Affairs Briefing from The Conversation UK is available as a weekly email newsletter. Click here to get updates directly in your inbox.