Ukraine Should Not Sign Resource Agreement With Trump Administration. Will Never Be What As Hoped. Not Investment In Future. Repayment For Past Due Invoices. At Least Wait Until Cease Fire.
Ukraine Should Not Sign Resource Agreement With Trump-Vance Administration
Document Will Never Be What Ukraine Wants It To Be
Document Not Investment In Future. It Is Repayment For Past Due Invoices.
At Minimum, Wait Until Cease Fire Agreement Implemented
“President Trump does not view Ukraine as a partner, an ally. He views Ukraine as a customer, a client… who owes him money. A delinquent borrower who accrues interest and penalties with each day.”
Today in Washington DC, representatives of the government of Ukraine are scheduled to meet with representatives of the Trump-Vance Administration (2025-2029).
The officially-stated purpose is for the representatives to discuss further, negotiate, and review a multi-decade (leaning towards perpetuity) agreement, arrangement, contract, document, or, as viewed by some observers in Kyiv and in Washington as an Oval Office-crafted scheme to formalize blackmail and extortion. There are truths in each description.
What is true: Regardless of how the signature page of any document is defined, and regardless of who signs it- heads of state, heads of government, heads of departments, heads of agencies, it will not be a treaty binding the Trump-Vance Administration nor the successor(s) to the Trump-Vance Administration. Even if an executed treaty, does anyone rationally believe the Trump-Vance Administration would find be unable or unwilling to construct a basis to refute terms? The word of the day should be “nominally”.
The government of Ukraine maintains whatever is signed must be submitted to the 450-seat parliament, Verkhovna Rada, where members and committees will review it, debate it, and perhaps require changes to it. Changes would require a return to negotiations with the Trump-Vance Administration.
Lying in wait is the negotiation history that is Donald Trump, 47th President of the United States (2025-2029). He signs, he hails, he promotes… until he decides to re-negotiate the deal.
A signature is a commodity to President Trump- its value can be decrease, increase, be stable- or lose all value and cease to exist. An agreement? Fake news. Never said it. The market, his market, will determine the timeline. Sign today. Renegotiate tomorrow. Examples? Canada, China, European Union, Mexico, among others.
For President Trump, the production for the signing of a document is often more important than what a document affords, demands, guarantees, mandates, offers, provides, and requires. The theatric is about his ability to get something from someone that someone does not want to give to him. It is quid pro quo (something for something; this for that) but nothing voluntary for one party- and that party is never him.
Unfortunately, a successful negotiation for the text of a document will likely necessitate a second encounter by President Zelensky with President Trump.
The optic of the meeting at The White House in the Oval Office with President Trump, President Zelensky, and J.D. Vance, Vice President of the United States (2025-2029), has morphed from a collection of nouns to a verb. Other heads of state and heads of government are terrified of being “Zelenskyed” and receiving the “Full Zelensky” from the reigning political tag-team champions of Trump-Vance.
For viewers, the first encounter was reminiscent of a scene from the 1982 released motion picture Tootsie where one of the actors goes off-script and the director in the control room is urgently flipping through the script binder to see where the new lines are and why the director was not apprised.
Important to not ignore the document involving the government of Ukraine for President Trump is neither first about benefits nor obligations in the future. The document for him represents success at extracting repayment from a customer for value previously provided.
In this instance, to reimburse United States taxpayers for the approximately “US$300 billion” that the Biden-Harris Administration (2021-2025) and the United States Congress (117th from 2021-2023 and 118th from 2023-2025) “gifted” to the government of Ukraine while other countries individually, and other countries collectively through the twenty-seven member Brussels, Belgium-based European Union (EU) provided primarily “loans” to the government of Ukraine. True or not, the adopted “alternative facts” are what President Trump believes and uses his Sharpie to calculate what is owed to him, um, United States taxpayers.
President Trump does not view Ukraine as a partner, an ally. He views Ukraine as a customer, a client… who owes him money. A delinquent borrower who accrues interest and penalties with each day.
Volodymyr Zelensky, President of Ukraine (2019-2024; term extended due to imposition of martial law in 2022), was wrong to suggest the resources opportunity in 2024 and then wrong to pursue it in 2025.
Given the negotiation dynamic that aligns with President Trump, there was never to be a demonstrative and immediately necessary benefit to Ukraine- its government, its taxpayers, and its voters.
The document was never to be about substance, about augmenting or replacing a military-based security guarantee or security umbrella under which the citizens of Ukraine could shield.
Part of the problem is President Zelensky continues to view and publicly espouse that the document is a security guarantee and security umbrella.
President Trump has added validity to this view by equating the presence of United States-based companies operating within portions of the internationally-recognized territory of Ukraine as a defacto security guarantee and security umbrella. It is neither.
On 24 February 2022, the armed forces of the Russian Federation invaded and further invaded the territory of Ukraine in what Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation (2000-2008 and 2012- ), defined as a Special Military Operation [SMO] then on 22 December 2022 he redefined as a war. The initial invasion of Ukraine by the armed forces of the Russian Federation was in part from the territory of Belarus.
The war between the Russian Federation and Ukraine did not commence on 24 February 2022. The roots began their trajectories on 20 February 2014 when the armed forces of the Russian Federation invaded the Crimean Peninsula and the area known as the Donbas Region (Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast).
President Zelensky needs to believe the execution of the document makes realistic for the Trump-Vance Administration to order to Ukraine the deployment of assets of the armed forces of the United States to protect, repel, and secure a resource asset owned by a United States-based company under siege by the armed forces of the Russian Federation. That the possibility of a visual similar to the 1948 Berlin Airlift is not only contemplated, but is expected.
For President Trump, however, an order to defend a what will likely be privately-owned commercial assets is far distant from an order to shift from a defensive posture an offensive posture- meaning engaging directly with the armed forces of the Russian Federation in defense of the territory of Ukraine.
For President Trump, and his successor(s), the question is about the willingness of the President of the United States to place in harm’s way, place in a kill zone, military personnel- and then be prepared politically to participate in a “dignified transfer” of remains at Dover Air Force Base in Dover, Delaware.
The government of Ukraine is mistaken to believe the United States Department of Defense will maintain on permanent PTDO (Prepare to Deploy Order) and “Prepare to Deploy” Status the 82nd Airborne Division of the United States Army known for its “rapid deployment capabilities and specialization in airborne assault operations”; the 75th Ranger Regiment (Army Rangers) known for its “elite special operations force known for their swift, decisive, and lethal capabilities, specializing in joint special operations raids and forcible entry operations”; Air Force B-52H Stratofortress bombers; and assets at Incirlik Air Base in Turkiye essential for “air refueling and close-air support missions.” How might Recep Tayyip Erdogan, President of the Republic of Turkiye (2014- ), react to a military base within Turkiye as a staging area for an attack, defensive or otherwise, upon the armed forces of the Russian Federation?
Related Background
From Media Reporting: “If we are talking about partnership and parity, we say that we are partners, and we will have such a fund, and this is great. And we want 50/50. So let's invest 50/50. You want 50/50? Yes. And what is the priority of the United States? The fact that we are doing this on our land. And this is absolutely normal. You bring the technology, we provide the production, we invest money together. Jobs, production. Our people earn money, your companies earn money with technologies that are not available in Ukraine. All of them. And this can be a success. And the agreement will be serious, and it will be ratified in the parliament. I am just defending what belongs to Ukraine. It should be beneficial to both the United States and Ukraine. This is the right thing to do,” Zelensky said. In this context, he criticized U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's approach to the deal. “I think Bessent's problems are in his approach. And what he came with, he said: “You have to sign this now”. I'm not going to hide it - I have different traits, just like every person. My colleagues know that it's wrong to point a finger at a contract and say, “You have to sign it now” - and I could only tell him, “Stop pointing and let's talk about the substance.” He was probably expecting a different dialog, but I don't consider Ukraine a third-rate country. I believe that we should communicate on equal terms, despite the fact that I am the President and he is not. I believe that he is an American citizen, I am a citizen of Ukraine. And we have to behave with respect for each other,” the head of state said. “Regarding the additional package, we want and we are ready, and we have handed over to the American side a large package that we want to buy. We want to buy it in one form or another. This is our format, how we will pay for it. And we did not ask for the future package for free,” Zelensky said.
From Media Reporting: President Volodymyr Zelensky said Thursday that he will not be traveling to the US soon to sign the newly revised resources deal “because the conditions are constantly changing.” A Ukrainian lawmaker outlined the new terms on Thursday and criticized them for being “downright HORRIBLE” as they demand more resources than previous versions and contain no security guarantees, among other terms that favored the US but not Ukraine. At a joint press conference after the Thursday security summit in Paris, Zelensky said the new deal should be studied by lawyers and ratified by Ukraine’s parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, before being signed into a framework agreement. Zelensky said, “America is now changing these rules and immediately offering a full agreement, and a full agreement requires detailed study.” Zelensky did not rule out signing the deal but hinted at a cautious approach. “For now, I am not going to Washington, because there is no such issue on the agenda. Secondly, we have a lot of these agreements on mineral resources. And therefore, I would like to approach this not theoretically, but practically: when will the final version of this or that agreement, the next one, be from the US, because the conditions are constantly changing,” Zelensky said, according to a Ukrainian news outlet. “But I would not like the US to have the feeling that Ukraine is against it in general. We have been constantly showing our positive signals, we are for cooperation with the US, we do not want to give any signals to encourage the US to stop aid to Ukraine or stop the exchange of intelligence,” he added.
From Media Reporting: The US reportedly demanded more resources and revenues than those stipulated in earlier agreements, with terms such as veto power from US appointees and the omission of any security guarantees that raised concerns in Kyiv. According to Ukrainian lawmaker Yaroslav Zheleznyak and foreign media such as the Financial Times and Reuters, who claimed to have obtained copies of the new draft deal, changes were made to the following areas: Scope of the deal – earlier versions stipulated 50% revenue extracted from Ukraine’s oil, gas and mineral resources (plus associated infrastructure), but the new version includes more minerals and all revenues extracted from both public and private sectors. Payment terms – under the new deal, the revenue is to be converted into foreign currencies immediately after extraction and to repay US aid for Ukraine, plus a 4% annual interest rate. The US also has first rights to all resources. Ukraine would not gain access to the fund’s profits until after repayment. Indefinite terms – there is now an indefinite term on the deal, which could only be altered or terminated with US approval. Joint fund management – the funds are to be managed by a joint investment fund in different iterations of the agreement, but the new version stipulates that the fund be managed by a five-person board, three of which are appointed by the US with full veto power. The new version also made no mention of security guarantees, a key provision that Kyiv has pushed for. Trump has previously argued that the US economic interests in the country alone should serve as a deterrent against future invasions. However, substantial US investments in Ukraine before 2022 failed to deter Moscow’s 2022 invasion.
