After a dramatic week of seeing both the third anniversary of the war in Ukraine and the gust of unprecedented diplomatic activities, it is becoming possible to see what an ideal agreement to end a bloody conflict is. But to know whether the agreement is actually achievable or realistic, we need to be in the minds of two of the most inexplicable men on the planet: Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.
This week, Washington and Kiev signed a contract to utilize Ukraine's mineral resources. After the war ended, plans emerged that could lead to European peacekeeping forces being deployed in Ukraine. And a visit to Washington by Ukrainian President Voldimir Zelensky is imminent.
Both developments suggest that Ukraine and European countries are working to make the most of the situation where the US does not rely on being on the Ukrainian side.
Can minerals save crane relationships with the United States?
Last week, relations between the US and Ukraine appeared to have reached the lowest point.
The US sent senior negotiators to meet Russian counterparts in Saudi Arabia, breaking long-standing promises without Ukraine being there. The US has sought to get Zelensky to sign more than half of Ukraine's important minerals as a refund for past American aid. Trump called Zelenskyy a “dictator” to avoid elections during the war. (He later refused to apply the same explanation to Putin.)
Then, on Monday, signs of a major shift in Russia followed. The United States was in line with Russia twice as much as its European allies of Ukraine and the United Nations. First, the US voted against the General Assembly resolution that condemned Russian invasion. It subsequently supported the Security Council resolution, which called for an end to the conflict, but did not include criticism of Russia.
But then on Tuesday, the US and Ukraine signed a revised edition of their long-standing mineral trade. Zelenskyy will travel to the US on Friday to sign the contract.
Ukraine is believed to have substantial reserves of important minerals such as lithium and graphite, as well as “rare earth” metals such as scandium and neodymium. Today, China controls the supply chain of these minerals, and these minerals have a variety of high-tech applications. (Some analysts are skeptical that Ukrainian reserves are as large as they are touted.) A significant amount of these reserves are believed to be in territory currently occupied by Russia, and Putin could quickly say this week that he is also open to partnerships with the US.
Before Trump took office, Ukrainian officials wanted to harness the country's mineral wealth to ensure future US support. This was not an irrational plan, but it appears to have backfired, given Trump's interest in managing mineral-rich territory like Greenland. Trump saw Ukrainian resources as “recovery” for past US aid, not temptation to support in the future. (Trump repeatedly claims that the US provided Ukraine with $300 billion or $350 billion in aid. Independent estimates the real number is about $120 billion.)
Two weeks ago, Treasury Secretary Scott Bescent reportedly presented it to Zelenskyy, which includes a demand that Ukraine exceed 50% of revenues up to $500 billion from future mineral extraction. Bessent requested Zelenskyy's signature without immediately discussing it. What led to Trump's sniping at Ukrainian leaders was Zelensky's refusal to sign.
On Tuesday, Ukraine and the United States agreed to a new version of the agreement that removed the requirement and instead set up a joint fund for the management of those resources. Officials say this is nothing more than a “framework” deal and there's no money actually changing their hands. (Some analysts do There's no skepticism. )
Furthermore, the agreement does not include security guarantees or pledges for future military aid, which are believed to be intentionally made ambiguous. However, Ukrainian officials hope that they will be placed in a stronger negotiating position with the upcoming Trump administration and improve tenors in relations after last week's sniper.
Can Europe maintain peace?
The British and French are promoting plans for the deployment of European “secure power” in Ukraine. France's Emmanuel Macron, the European leader who currently has the most experience working with Trump, visited the White House on Monday for talks with Trump with Ukraine. British Prime Minister Kiel Starmer will follow suit on Thursday.
Whether “reliability forces” are actually at ease for anyone can depend on the risk of conflict that Ukrainian partners are now willing to take.
The still-developed plan will likely involve less than 30,000 troops from several European countries and focus on air and maritime powers. It is unlikely that it will impress Russians numerically. At this point, Ukraine already has the largest and most experienced ground forces in Europe. But the idea is that Russia may never think about violating a ceasefire again.
The United States supports the idea of European peacekeeping forces. However, Britain and France argue that the troops must come along with the US “backstop.” What that means is not entirely defined, but it probably wants the US to provide air support if the military is attacked.
In a recent speech to the Munich security conference, Defense Secretary Pete Hegses appears to have ruled out the US role in peacekeeping forces.
However, when Trump was asked by a reporter about supporting the troops after his meeting with Macron, he did not completely dismiss the idea. I don't think that will be a problem. Once the agreement is signed, Russia will return to its business, and Ukraine and Europe will return to their business. ”
Trump also said Putin personally told him that Russian leaders were willing to accept post-war Ukraine's European peacekeeping forces. The Russian government claimed it had denied immediately.
Not everyone is involved in the plan. The German and Polish governments are skeptical. Zelenskyy says it needs a unit of 100,000 to 150,000 units backed by the US. However, given that these forces are not assumed as more actual military deterrents than tripwires, the key question is not how many of them are.
Since the start of the war, Ukrainian supporters, including both Europeans and the US, had two priorities: helping Ukrainians fight the Russians and preventing a wider war between nuclear-armed enemies in the West. The second priority often surpassed the first. (“There's such involvement from other countries, and it could really lead to a very big war, World War II, and we're not going to let that happen either,” Trump said Monday.
Whether “reliability forces” are actually at ease for anyone can depend on the risk of conflict that Ukrainian partners are now willing to take.
Potential deals are emerging. Does anyone want that?
An agreement that freezes the current frontline into place and includes a European peacekeeping force with some US-backed support, may be difficult for Ukraine to refuse.
Leaving the territory under Russian occupation would be a painful casualty, but polls show that most Ukrainians support negotiations to end the war rather than fight to victory
Still, Ukrainian officials are essentially skeptical of the agreement with Russia, claiming that Moscow had violated previous agreements in 1994 and 2014 to respect their sovereignty. Ukraine wanted a NATO membership from the US or a NATO-Lite security guarantee. They appear to be off the table now. Some suggest that the US and Ukraine could instead pursue a “Israel model” partnership. The United States is not bound by law to come to Israel's defense, but it must provide Israel with military capabilities to maintain a “qualitative military advantage” against its rivals.
The fear, as always, is that a ceasefire simply gives Russia time to reorganize for another attack.
Of course, Ukraine can refuse US-backed deals and continue fighting, but that could mean that it will do so without US military systems such as the Patriot Air Defense System, the Himmers Rocket Launcher, and Elon Musk's Starlink Satellite System.
Of course, all of this assumes Putin is interested in actually ending the war.
Russian officials argue that, like Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, they are not interested in quick deals and will continue to fight until in recent years Ukraine's political drift to the west and NATO's involvement in Eastern Europe is addressed.
Given the existential interests that Putin has obsessed with this war, analysts are skeptical of Russia and willing to stop fighting on acceptable conditions even in this administration.
Still, Russia's offensive momentum on the ground in Ukraine is slowing down, with signs that it is seriously injured, lost equipment, recruiting new troops, and that its economy is showing signs of tension. There is a reason to quit while Russia is first.
The Washington-based Think Tank Research Institute for War Research has highlighted one of the latest concessions from Moscow. In a recent interview, Putin appears to have confirmed that Zelensky is Russia's future negotiation partner. Russia previously claimed that Zelensky was not a legitimate leader as Ukraine didn't hold elections in 2024.
Still, Russia was able to join the consultations with the aim of dragging them out indefinitely and pushing them on the battlefield advantages. Even Russians can seem confused as the Kremlin's new administration shows some things, but you might think it's time for Putin to restrain this and see what he can get.
Trump said he was happy before taking office. increase Assistance to Ukraine to agree to Russia to deal. It is unclear whether that possibility is still on the table or what Trump will do if the ceasefire doesn't reach it anytime soon.
For weeks, Ukrainian and European officials thought they understood the administration's approach, but only flipped the script completely following Trump's call with Putin this month. Not because of a problem that could turn it over again.
