The joint press conference between President Biden and Ukrainian President Zelensky sparked widespread criticism, with Zelensky under pressure to justify his approach amid ongoing war challenges. Trump accused him of ingratitude and pointed to NATO’s broken promises to Russia, citing historical negotiations. As Zelensky struggles with rising domestic discontent and allegations of corruption, the sympathy for Ukraine may wane. Proposed agreements hint at vast mineral wealth in contested territories, but the mining industry questions their viability. Ultimately, the author argues that Zelensky must acknowledge his limited leverage and prioritize peace to spare his people further suffering.
The recent public trimming in diplomatic history is unprecedented. The joint press conference between the President of the United States and Ukraine’s President Zelensky has ignited a firestorm online, with critiques aimed at both leaders and rampant speculation about what may come next. Zelensky appeared understandably tense, tasked with explaining a ‘deal’ to his constituents. Trump, alongside his Vice-President, was aggressively challenging Zelensky, who they believe has not expressed sufficient gratitude toward a President actively trying to mitigate a devastating war. While it’s true that Trump seeks a share in mineral resources, it’s important to note that the U.S. and its European allies have historically engaged in conflicts for resource acquisition without openly admitting it—something Trump did, however.
The Joint Press Conference
Zelensky appeared in his signature camouflage attire, making more of a fashion statement than a practical choice, given that he is not currently on the battlefield. An audience member’s query regarding his choice of dress at a White House meeting came off as inappropriate, highlighting the frustration with a comedian who has led his once-thriving nation to devastation and brought the world closer to the brink of World War III. Trump rightly pointed out this reality.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio clarified that the Ukrainians had insisted on making the trip to Washington, despite the deal remaining off the table. Instead of being sidelined, there had been extensive negotiations spanning at least ten days and multiple discussions. Nevertheless, Zelensky’s decision to confront the U.S. President and his team in an unnecessary diatribe seemed counterproductive, revealing that he was, perhaps unsurprisingly, playing to his audience. History shows that wartime leaders rarely survive politically, and Zelensky is no exception; the rising far-right movement and allegations of corruption could pose a significant threat to his position.
Trump’s Valid Points on Russia
Support for Ukraine may be waning. The primary argument remains that Russia invaded Ukraine. However, there is ample documentation supporting Trump’s assertion during the press conference that this was a conflict that should never have started and that Russia had never consented to NATO’s eastward expansion. Multiple pieces of evidence indicate that Russia received ‘iron-clad guarantees’ against NATO expansion, explicitly outlined in a 1990 memo exchanged between Secretary James Baker and his Russian counterpart, Shevardnadze. Over the years, these assurances continued through various memos and conversations, leading former CIA Director Robert Gates to suggest that Soviet leaders believed NATO’s intentions were genuine. The entire process of German reunification hinged on an unwritten promise that NATO membership was aimed solely at stabilizing the continent.
Eventually, NATO welcomed 14 new members in the following decade. Fast forward to 1997, a NATO-Russia Founding Act was created to promote a ‘robust partnership’ between NATO and Russia. Boris Yeltsin effectively acquiesced to including Czechia, Poland, and Hungary contingent upon no nuclear weapons being stationed there. However, this agreement did not explicitly address further expansions. Was it a betrayal? Certainly, as Russia was led to believe throughout this period that it too might one day join NATO, a possibility it had sought since 1954.
NATO Promises and Retreats
Throughout the 1990s, NATO’s ties with Ukraine deepened, culminating in 2008 when it welcomed Ukraine’s (and Georgia’s) “Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership.” This infuriated Russia but had little effect. Subsequently, leaks surfaced regarding alleged American involvement in engineering a ‘friendly’ government in Ukraine. The invasion of Crimea followed in 2014 after a pro-Russian government was ousted. NATO’s support increased, which included a Comprehensive Assistance Package (CAP) designed for military training geared towards achieving full interoperability.
In 2017, Ukraine amended its constitution to declare allegiance to NATO membership, a commitment solidified further following Zelensky’s 2019 election. By 2022, he was seeking “accelerated membership,” asserting that member status would serve as a deterrence. Despite receiving standing ovations and praise during NATO summits, concrete commitments were scarce. Zelensky’s appeals for a clear timeline regarding future membership remained unanswered. At a NATO summit in July 2024, a statement confirmed, “Ukraine’s future is in NATO,” without guaranteeing specifics. Unfortunately, Ukraine has grown accustomed to betrayal. In 1994, major parties, including Russia, signed the Budapest Memorandum, honoring Ukraine’s sovereignty as it relinquished the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal. Curiously, this commitment also included a pledge to “refrain from economic coercion.” What, then, is the actual cost of a minerals deal?
Those Alluring Minerals
Now, concerning the proposed agreement. Claims about immense mineral resources seem to stem from a Ukrainian geological survey indicating approximately $15 trillion in resources. Notably, much of this is located in territories under Russian occupation, implying that Kyiv anticipates regaining control over them. However, there is skepticism from the mining sector that such ‘reserves’ are unverified, arguing that Ukraine relies on outdated Soviet-era maps in a desperate bid for credibility.
Current drafts of the agreement propose a bilateral reconstruction fund aimed at “future monetization of all relevant Ukrainian government-owned natural resource assets.” Another intriguing clause states that the fund will “strive to avoid conflicts with Ukraine’s obligations under its European Union accession.” The EU struck a deal with Ukraine back in 2021, just before the onset of the war. Recently, the EU commissioner reiterated that 21 of the 30 critical minerals required by Europe are found in Ukraine. This suggests Europe has a vested interest in seeing Russia return these territories, though achieving this at the negotiating table appears unlikely.
Don’t Rely on Europe
As Europe reacts to Trump’s critique, the reality is stark. While both the UK and France have offered troops as “second-line” peacekeepers, along with a multinational force, Europe is not prepared to engage militarily for Ukraine. Moreover, although European contributions to the conflict have exceeded those from the U.S.—$138.7 billion versus $119.7 billion—much of Europe’s contribution comes in the form of loans, in contrast to the U.S., which provides grants. Essentially, the wealthiest nations on earth are hesitant to fund the war or provide military support. This is precisely what Trump highlights.
In conclusion, while Trump may employ a blunt approach to emphasize his points, negotiating peace is in Ukraine’s and its citizens’ best interests. The first step is for Zelensky to realize he lacks leverage, unless the U.S. steps up. Europe is unlikely to contribute significantly aside from offering EU membership. Any security assurances will derive from a peacekeeping mission aimed at countering alleged Russian ambitions. The recovery of territory will be left to future negotiators to discuss. Ultimately, the crux of the matter is Zelensky’s decision to end the war. His people have endured enough turmoil; that should have been the central focus of the Washington meeting. Everything else is mere embellishment, and those enticing minerals remain largely theoretical—unless someone actually ventures out to start mining, of course.
(Tara Kartha is a former director of the National Security Council Secretariat)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author