Zelensky heads to Trump for a deal. Will negotiations with Russia begin?

Read about the reasons behind the conflict between Ukraine and the USA regarding the "mineral deal," how it unfolded, its outcomes, and the direction of peace negotiations after the upcoming meeting between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky in Washington – in this article by Milan Lelich, Deputy Editor-in-Chief of RBC-Ukraine.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• Why the conflict over the "deal" began
• "Peace through strength" against Ukraine
• What will happen next in the peace negotiations

"Is this already the worst-case scenario for us?" – This question has been posed by RBC-Ukraine in recent days to various interlocutors within the Ukrainian government and European diplomatic circles. The reasons for concern were apparent: Donald Trump launched daily verbal attacks against Volodymyr Zelensky, associates of the American president flatly refused to acknowledge the fact of Russian aggression against Ukraine, and for the first time in many years, the USA and Russia found themselves on the same side at the UN.

Responses ranged from "yes, this is the worst-case scenario" to "no, not yet the worst – they are just talking for now, and the worst will come when real actions begin."

As a result, the primary issue of the past few weeks has been resolved – the deal between the USA and Ukraine regarding natural resources will indeed be signed. The worst-case scenario has been avoided – at least for now.

Why the conflict over the "deal" began

Trump entered the elections with two main concrete promises in international politics: to end the wars in Gaza and Ukraine. In Gaza, he generally succeeded, even before officially taking office.

However, the situation with Ukraine turned out to be more complicated, a fact that Trump and his associates began to acknowledge. The idea of "peace in 24 hours" disappeared from the rhetoric, replaced by increasingly vague and extended timelines.

Nevertheless, it was very important for Trump to show some results in the Ukrainian direction. Ideally, these results should starkly contrast with those of his predecessor, Joe Biden, with whom the current occupant of the White House continues an unspoken competition.

Ultimately, Trump adopted an idea previously voiced by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham – that Ukraine possesses significant reserves of rare earth metals that need to be protected from Russian occupation, and that joint extraction represents a mutual Ukrainian-American interest. This idea eventually made its way into "Zelensky's Victory Plan" in October.

However, in Trump's understanding, the essence of the proposal was completely distorted: it was not the USA that should protect Ukraine and its resources from enemies, but Ukraine that owed the USA hundreds of billions of dollars for the aid provided by Biden and would now reimburse these amounts through its natural wealth.

Shortly thereafter, the "negotiation-related" Ukrainian-American discourse completely shifted to discussions about the "mineral deal," moving away from topics like security guarantees, the introduction of peacekeepers, territorial control, ceasefire conditions, and so forth.

The first attack occurred just days before the Munich conference, led by US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who personally brought the relevant draft deal to Kyiv and insisted on its immediate acceptance. Ukraine took some time to consider.

According to sources speaking to RBC-Ukraine, the Americans were very hopeful about signing the "deal" in Munich – and were quite disappointed when it turned out that Ukraine viewed its provisions entirely differently. Aligning positions would evidently require time.

Nonetheless, many sources from the Ukrainian delegation reported leaving Munich in quite a good mood. One reason was that the first personal contact with Trump's team, led by Vice President JD Vance, went well, and the initial pressure regarding the "deal" was, as was then presumed, successfully contained.

"Peace through strength" against Ukraine

However, Trump, as it turned out a couple of days later, had a different opinion on the matter. The American president launched a powerful attack on his Ukrainian counterpart, labeling him a "dictator," discussing "4% support for Zelensky," almost directly demanding elections in Ukraine, and so on. Other representatives of his administration echoed this tone. Some of their quotes, without knowing the authorship, could easily be attributed to Russian officials or propagandists.

During this time, political circles were actively discussing the so-called "worst-case scenario" – the possibility of a complete cessation of American support. In negotiations, Ukraine was made quite aware that without an agreement on natural resources, there would be no assistance. Sources for RBC-Ukraine agreed that in such a case, an immediate collapse on the front would not occur; Ukraine could hold out for some months, but this struggle would be doomed to failure.

Essentially, the concept of "peace through strength," which had been embraced in Kyiv in recent months, was turned 180 degrees by the Trump administration, just as was Senator Graham's idea regarding natural resources. They preferred to apply "strength" against Ukraine. This contrasted sharply with the overtly neutral, if not positive, remarks directed at the aggressor state (which Trump’s associates flatly refused to label).

As a result, both Ukraine's European allies and representatives of the Ukrainian government hoped that the "deal" could still be concluded – the only question was what its content would be and how much the American appetites could be tempered.

Judging by the final text of the document, Ukraine indeed managed to avoid any specific obligations, primarily not recognizing the ephemeral "debt" to the USA for the assistance already provided.

At the same time, Trump gained the opportunity to "sell" this agreement favorably to his electorate, using the formula "Biden was giving away your money – and I am returning it to you, plus interest." In fact, the American president has already begun to declare that "this deal will bring us great wealth." The main Republican television channel, Fox News, titled its yesterday's live broadcast: "Trump returns BACK the taxpayer money given to Ukraine!"

What will happen next in the peace negotiations

If the signing of the deal in Washington proceeds successfully, an obvious question will arise: what will happen next after the "mineral" issue is resolved? This will certainly be the main topic for discussion between Trump and Zelensky in Washington.

Clearly, Trump will now begin to pressure the warring parties to cease fire. This is the first element of his scheme: "ceasefire – elections in Ukraine – final peace agreement."

With the same success that Trump presents a rather general agreement on minerals as the "deal of the century," which will bring Americans "great wealth" – he will present the ceasefire as the "end of the war." The principle is the same: "under Biden, hundreds of thousands of Russians and Ukrainians were dying, but under me, they have stopped dying."

The specific parameters of the peace agreement, practical issues like control over specific territories, the presence or absence of a demilitarized zone, the mandate and number of peacekeepers, monitoring of the ceasefire, and so on – these do not concern Trump at all, as all sources from Ukraine and the EU confirm. What matters to him is that "there is no shooting."

Meanwhile, these parameters will determine how sustainable peace will be. In Kyiv, as in other European capitals, this is well understood, learned from the experience of ATO/OOS and the Minsk agreements.

Thus, the Ukrainian delegation will resist "a ceasefire without any conditions" with even more determination than they did against recognizing the multi-billion "debt" to the USA.

Trump, for his part, will again push his vision with all his might. The difference from the story with "minerals" is that a ceasefire requires agreement not only from Ukraine but also from Russia.

Therefore, the stance that Trump and his associates will take regarding the aggressor state will be telling: will it be as strong a public pressure as on Ukraine regarding the minerals, or will the "honeymoon" in Washington-Moscow relations continue?

A number of RBC-Ukraine sources suggested that a general, framework, even "conceptual" agreement has already been reached between the USA and Russia regarding the need to end the war, and all events of recent weeks were directed toward its implementation.

Such a test could have been the events at the UN earlier this week, where the USA and Russia, with their overtly "neutral" approach, initially lost to Ukraine and Europe at the General Assembly, and then took revenge at the Security Council session.

Europe, which has de facto become the only relatively reliable ally of Ukraine under current conditions, has been trying to demonstrate its subjectivity since the Munich conference. This does not always succeed – for example, France and the United Kingdom had every opportunity to block the American resolution at the Security Council, but chose not to do so, offering transparent excuses