According to a report by NBC News, U.S. President Donald Trump no longer considers Ukraine’s agreement on a minerals deal sufficient to justify continued military aid.
The agreement, once thought to be Trump’s primary requirement for sustaining support to Kyiv, is now viewed as inadequate. Instead, sources suggest that the U.S. president has instructed his aides, who are set to engage in negotiations with Ukrainian officials in Saudi Arabia next week, to demand more substantial concessions from Ukraine.
Key Demands: Territory, Ceasefire, and Elections
Among the new conditions reportedly being put forward by Trump’s administration are Ukrainian territorial concessions in favour of Russia, a greater willingness to negotiate a ceasefire with Moscow, and President Volodymyr Zelensky’s agreement to hold new presidential elections. Furthermore, there are indications that Trump’s team may even be pushing for Zelensky’s resignation.
These demands mark a significant shift in U.S. policy towards Ukraine, reflecting Trump’s long-standing reluctance to provide military aid without a transactional benefit. Throughout his political career, he has repeatedly questioned why American taxpayers should fund Ukraine’s defence against Russian aggression without clear returns for the United States.
The Minerals Deal: A Cover for Military Aid?
Previously, Trump’s stance on Ukraine’s mineral resources was seen as a way to justify continued military support. The agreement, which allowed American companies greater access to Ukraine’s reserves of critical minerals, was framed as a strategic economic partnership that would ensure that aid to Ukraine was not simply a financial drain but an investment benefiting the U.S.
However, recent reports suggest that Trump is using the aid issue to exert broader pressure on Ukraine. His administration appears to be leveraging Kyiv’s reliance on U.S. military and financial support to push for a settlement that could benefit Russia. This may include urging Ukraine to withdraw from territories claimed but not occupied by Russia and to recognise Moscow’s territorial claims.
Ukraine as the Only Pressure Point
Unlike Russia, where Trump has little leverage over President Vladimir Putin’s decisions, Ukraine remains dependent on Western military and financial assistance. This dependency makes it the most viable target for Trump’s pressure tactics.
By demanding Ukrainian concessions, the U.S. president may be seeking to frame the end of the war as a diplomatic success, while simultaneously reducing American involvement in the war.
The question remains whether Trump is merely seeking a public relations victory or if he genuinely believes that territorial concessions and a ceasefire could lead to a stable resolution of the war. If so, it would align with his broader foreign policy approach, which prioritises perceived U.S. strategic gains over traditional alliances.
Implications for Ukraine
Any agreement that involves territorial concessions would be a serious challenge for Ukraine. Accepting such terms could undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty and embolden Russian ambitions in the region.
Furthermore, the prospect of early elections could create political instability in Kyiv, particularly if it is perceived as being driven by external pressure rather than internal democratic processes.
Russia has repeatedly insisted that Ukraine withdraw from all territories Moscow has claimed as its own, including Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions. If Trump’s demands align with these Russian expectations, it could indicate a shift in Washington’s approach towards ending the conflict—one that risks legitimising Russian territorial gains.
The Wider Geopolitical Context
Trump’s reported stance raises broader concerns about U.S. foreign policy under his administration. If he is willing to push Ukraine towards a settlement favourable to Russia, it could signal a reorientation of U.S. strategic interests in Europe.
At the same time, it would raise questions about the credibility of U.S. commitments to its allies, particularly NATO members that have supported Ukraine’s resistance against Russian aggression.
Russia’s long-term objective, as outlined by key figures in the Kremlin, remains the weakening or even dismantling of Ukraine as a sovereign state. The potential destabilisation caused by forced concessions or political upheaval in Kyiv could play into Moscow’s broader objectives.
