President Trump informed his cabinet that Ukraine’s President Zelensky is expected to sign a mineral wealth agreement in Washington, but the U.S. would not provide security guarantees to Ukraine against Russia. Zelensky’s primary demand for such guarantees remains unmet, raising concerns about a potential cease-fire allowing Russia to regroup. Trump insisted that if any guarantees are to be made, they should come from Europe, affirming that the U.S. would take a minimal role. This stance could weaken NATO’s position and embolden Putin. The ongoing negotiations over Ukraine’s resources reflect a shift towards a more exploitative arrangement under Trump’s administration.
On Wednesday, President Trump informed his cabinet that President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine was anticipated to arrive in Washington to finalize a framework agreement allowing the United States to partake in Ukraine’s mineral resources. However, he emphasized that the U.S. would not be offering any security guarantees to Ukraine in exchange.
Securing such guarantees from Washington, the sole nuclear-armed nation able to genuinely counter Russia, was Mr. Zelensky’s primary request. He is particularly worried about being coerced into a cease-fire, only to find that Russia takes advantage of it to rearm and strategize for another attempt to reclaim his country.
Nonetheless, Mr. Trump clarified that if any promises are to be made, they must originate from Europe, with minimal support from Washington.
“I’m not going to provide security guarantees beyond very much,” he stated during his first cabinet meeting, where the focus was largely on the dismissal of government employees and other initiatives managed by Elon Musk, who has gained significant influence in the administration. “We’re going to have Europe do that.”
Mr. Trump has not publicly addressed the potential role of the United States in preventing Russia from reigniting the conflict. He remained silent on Monday during a joint news conference at the White House when Emmanuel Macron, the French president, raised the subject of security guarantees multiple times.
His unequivocal statement that the United States would not engage in security guarantees may hasten an end to the hostilities but could potentially embolden President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. The Russian leader is more likely to agree to a cease-fire if he is aware that the United States would not intervene should he decide to attack again.
Furthermore, Mr. Trump’s remarks may reinforce Europe’s anxiety that he has effectively shifted allegiance in the conflict and is pursuing a broader normalization of relations with Russia. The notion that Europe might find itself in a position of backing Ukraine while continuing to isolate Russia, while Mr. Trump adopts an opposing stance, has unsettled NATO allies, prompting the soon-to-be German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, to assert that Germany must seek “independence from the U.S.A.”
Scott Bessent, Mr. Trump’s Treasury secretary, has posited that the existence of American financial interests in Ukraine’s reserves of titanium, lithium, uranium, and rare earth minerals constitutes the best security guarantee the nation could obtain.
“I refer to it as an economic security guarantee,” Mr. Bessent remarked last weekend. He has been in discussions regarding the minerals agreement with Mr. Zelensky and his team.
Mr. Trump has characterized the mineral deal as compensation for what the United States has already expended in Ukraine — a figure he has significantly inflated to $350 billion. In actuality, the most optimistic assessments of U.S. expenditure over the past three years amount to roughly half that figure, even accounting for the cost of replenishing American stockpiles — funds that remain in the United States.
The concept of engaging the United States in the monetization of Ukraine’s natural resources initially originated from the Ukrainians during the Biden administration. The notion was that revenues from mining would finance future military expenses and assist in the reconstruction of the most severely affected areas of the country.
However, under Mr. Trump, the negotiations took a markedly different trajectory, resembling a colonial power demanding tribute.
Mr. Bessent was dispatched to Kyiv just over a week ago to persuade Mr. Zelensky to endorse a deal that would obligate the country to pay $500 billion to the United States. The Ukrainian leader declined, leading to a confrontation with the U.S., which included Mr. Trump labeling him a “dictator,” while refraining from applying the same term to Mr. Putin.
In an effort to maintain the fragile relationship with Washington, Mr. Zelensky seems to have adjusted his goals. He hopes to finalize something in Washington on Friday that can be interpreted as the mining agreement Mr. Trump has demanded, but which would resemble more of a memorandum of understanding, with many specifics set to be determined later.
A draft of the document, reviewed by The New York Times, included only ambiguous mentions of safeguarding Ukraine. It specifies that the United States “supports Ukraine’s endeavor to secure the necessary guarantees for establishing enduring peace.” During the cabinet meeting, Mr. Trump clarified what that entails: The French and British can deploy what he called “so-called peacekeepers” if they wish, but he will not participate.
European officials remain far from reaching a consensus on what such a force might comprise. Nonetheless, the objective and structure of the force could significantly influence outcomes.
A peacekeeping force of the type Mr. Trump mentioned might necessitate 100,000 troops or more — a number that surpasses the capabilities of Britain, France, and Germany without diverting critical forces from other missions, including those linked to NATO defense. Alternatively, an “observer” force could be much smaller — some officials suggest around 10,000 troops — but would simply monitor any violations and report them.
An even smaller team could function as a “tripwire” that would trigger a larger response to any Russian military actions, but that is only effective if the United States and its allies are ready to take action.
Ukrainians are familiar with weak security agreements: In December 1994, they consented to the “Budapest Memorandum,” wherein they relinquished their nuclear arsenal — inherited from the Soviet Union and still controlled by Moscow — while the United States, Britain, and Russia pledged “to respect the independence, sovereignty, and existing borders of Ukraine.”
This agreement proved to be futile when Russia annexed Crimea and commenced hostilities in the Donbas in 2014. Although the agreement resulted in Ukraine receiving arms and intelligence support in 2022 at the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion, neither Britain nor the United States dispatched troops.