The White House meeting between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was more than a diplomatic encounter—it was a stark display of power dynamics in an era where geopolitical interests supersede traditional diplomacy. Contrary to claims of theatrical absurdity, the meeting revealed the raw mechanics of political maneuvering when leverage is one-sided.
Millions followed the event closely, witnessing what seemed like a meticulously laid trap. Trump’s objective was clear: securing Zelensky’s signature on the controversial “Minerals Deal.” The agreement, widely regarded as both exploitative and demeaning, was strategically framed as a path to stability. Yet, Zelensky resisted, postponing the deal indefinitely. In doing so, he inadvertently isolated Ukraine, leaving it to face Russia’s aggression with only lukewarm European support—an outcome that played directly into Moscow’s hands.
Politics has evolved beyond the era of subtle diplomacy. In today’s world, power players openly declare their intentions, regardless of how these align with historical, geographical, or humanitarian realities. Trump’s approach to Ukraine exemplifies this shift. A complex, devastating war—one that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives—was reduced in his eyes to a mere business transaction: a minerals trade-off.
President Trump’s proposed framework for resolving the conflict in Ukraine exemplifies this approach. Overnight, a security and historical dispute—one that had led to a protracted war lasting three years and claiming hundreds of thousands of lives—was reduced to nothing more than a “Minerals Deal.” This characterization reflects how President Trump perceives the issue. Even if the agreement is eventually signed at a later date, it is expected to be a humiliating moment for Ukraine, as it will involve ceding the rights to exploit the country’s mineral resources in exchange for billions of dollars. Simultaneously, the agreement would recognize Russia’s territorial claims over occupied Ukrainian lands and include a commitment that Ukraine would not pursue NATO membership—the very aspiration that originally fueled the conflict. Furthermore, President Zelensky has reportedly already agreed to step down from office as part of the arrangement.
A significant concern regarding this agreement is the absence of any security guarantees, despite Ukraine’s consistent insistence on their inclusion from the outset. The final document outlines the establishment of a US-Ukraine investment fund dedicated to reconstruction, funded by revenues generated from Ukraine’s natural resources, including minerals and hydrocarbons. The agreement stipulates that Ukraine will contribute 50% of these revenues, minus operational costs, until the fund reaches $500bn. In return, the United States has committed to providing long-term financial support to foster Ukraine’s economic stability and prosperity. However, the agreement raises critical questions regarding the extent of US ownership and the terms of joint resource management, as the United States remains the sole beneficiary of the fund, retaining 100% control.
According to official data, Ukraine possesses 22 of the 34 minerals classified by the European Union as critical resources. Notably, Ukraine holds 20% of the world’s graphite reserves, a key component in electric vehicle batteries and nuclear reactors. When questioned about what Ukraine would gain from this agreement, President Trump referenced what he described as $350 billion in aid already provided by the United States, as well as “a substantial amount of military equipment and the right to continue fighting.” While the agreement may be viewed as a form of economic coercion by many around the world, it is perceived as essential for securing the support of President Trump and key Republican lawmakers.
This is not the first instance of political pressure being leveraged in international affairs. During World War II, amid relentless German airstrikes on London, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill traveled to Washington to meet with then-US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, seeking military assistance to counter Germany’s overwhelming offensive. President Roosevelt saw this as an opportunity to negotiate concessions, pressing Churchill to cede British-controlled islands and territories in the Americas to the United States. Under pressure, Churchill agreed, famously remarking, “Mr. President, you are dealing with me like the usurer Shylock.”
President Trump approaches politics in an unconventional and often personal manner. The series of concessions extracted from President Zelensky reflects, in part, a deeply personal dimension to their interactions. The tension between the two leaders has escalated into a public dispute, unsettling European allies who fear that the handling of this conflict is disproportionately benefiting Russian President Vladimir Putin. President Trump has personal motivations for diminishing President Zelensky’s standing, largely stemming from a series of events that took place in February of this year.
On 12 February, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent met with President Zelensky in Kyiv to propose a deal granting the United States access to Ukraine’s mineral rights in exchange for de facto American security guarantees. President Zelensky evaded the proposal, prompting President Trump to later comment to the press that Zelensky had been “rude” and had delayed his meeting with Bessent because he was sleeping. Two days later, at the Munich Security Conference, US Vice President J.D. Vance and Senator Marco Rubio engaged with President Zelensky to secure his approval of the agreement. However, Zelensky surprised US officials by stating that he lacked the unilateral authority to sign the deal without parliamentary consent. The following day, he publicly rejected the proposal at the conference.
On 18 February, as US officials held peace talks with Russian negotiators in Saudi Arabia, President Zelensky criticized the discussions for proceeding without Ukrainian representation. This provoked a strong reaction from President Trump, who, during a press conference at Mar-a-Lago, accused Zelensky of initiating the war with Russia while enjoying only 4% support from the Ukrainian parliament. The next day, President Zelensky countered by stating that the US president was “operating within the realm of Russian disinformation.” President Trump then escalated the situation further by posting on his social media platform, Truth Social, that Zelensky, a former comedian, was “a moderately successful entertainer” who had become “a dictator without elections.” At the same time, President Trump notably declined to characterize President Putin as a dictator.
Additionally, President Trump holds long-standing grievances stemming from the 2019 elections. He believes that President Joe Biden and his team manipulated the election results, humiliating him upon taking office by initiating a prolonged series of legal investigations throughout his term. As a result, he consistently attributes global crises to President Biden’s actions. Regarding Ukraine, President Trump’s opposition is twofold: he has long objected to US military aid to Kyiv, and he personally resents President Zelensky for allowing President Biden’s son to secure a lucrative contract with a Ukrainian gas company—a move seen as a political favor in exchange for US support.
During President Trump’s first term, the international arena remained relatively stable, with no significant wars. However, circumstances have since changed dramatically. Now, President Trump aspires to be recognized with a Nobel Peace Prize, having declared in his inaugural speech that he would bring an end to the wars allegedly ignited by the Biden administration. Yet today, a major war continues in Europe, the Middle East remains in turmoil, and the global order is in flux. The confluence of these factors risks triggering far-reaching consequences, including escalating trade and security tensions involving China, Taiwan, and Europe.
President Trump has demonstrated a willingness to realign international alliances and shift strategic priorities, as evidenced by his deepening political and economic engagement with Russia and his cautious disengagement from Europe—a stark departure from US foreign policy since the end of World War II. However, such a transformation carries significant risks, as it requires a timeframe that far exceeds the duration of a single presidential term. Should his diplomatic efforts fail to yield meaningful breakthroughs, his successor may face significant challenges, potentially reversing any progress made.
Ultimately, Trump may not emerge as a peacemaker, but his transactional approach could redefine global politics, for better or worse.
Dr. Hatem Sadek | Professor, Helwan University
