German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has sharply criticised U.S. President Donald Trump’s suggestion that military aid to Ukraine should be contingent on access to the country’s rare earth resources.
Speaking after an informal European leaders’ meeting in Brussels, Scholz described the proposal as “very egotistic, very self-centred,” asserting that Ukraine must use its resources for reconstruction rather than as bargaining chips for security assistance.
Scholz emphasised that Ukraine’s natural wealth should be utilised to finance its post-war rebuilding. “That’s why I think it would be better if Ukraine’s resources were used for a good future,” he said. His remarks signal growing European opposition to Trump’s transactional approach to aid.
However, Ukraine appears more open to the idea than Scholz’s criticism suggests. President Volodymyr Zelensky has previously included resource-sharing in his broader “victory plan” for ending the war with Russia, which has been presented to foreign leaders, including Trump.
Trump’s remarks, made to reporters on 3 February, indicated that he was seeking an arrangement whereby Ukraine would “secure what we’re giving them with their rare earths and other things.” He further stated that Ukraine was willing to make such an arrangement, adding that he seeks “equalisation” from Kyiv for Washington’s “close to $300bn” in support.
Uncertainty Over U.S. Aid to Ukraine
Trump’s comments come at a time of uncertainty regarding the future of U.S. assistance to Ukraine. U.S. shipments of weapons to Kyiv were briefly paused in recent days before resuming over the weekend, as the Trump administration reviewed its policy towards Ukraine. According to Reuters, the shipments restarted after the White House reconsidered an initial stance that would have halted all aid.
While Washington has provided $65.9 billion in military aid since the beginning of Russia’s invasion, funding for non-military programmes through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has been significantly affected under Trump’s administration.
USAID has previously supplied Ukraine with $2.6 billion in humanitarian aid, $5 billion in development assistance, and more than $30 billion in direct budgetary support. The cuts to these programmes have prompted Ukraine’s parliamentary committee on humanitarian and information policy to seek alternative funding from European partners.
Escalating Battlefield Challenges for Ukraine
As the debate over aid continues, Ukrainian forces face growing challenges on the battlefield. Russian forces have continued to make territorial gains, advancing 430 square kilometres into Ukrainian territory in January alone. Moscow is focused on capturing Pokrovsk, a key logistics hub in the eastern Donetsk region. The city’s strategic location makes it vital for Ukraine’s supply lines, but recent Russian advances have placed these routes within their artillery range.
Ukrainian commanders report that a shortage of infantry troops, coupled with Russian drone attacks on supply routes, has put Ukraine at a disadvantage. Ukrainian forces are struggling to sustain their defensive lines, and new recruits are reportedly facing difficulties in executing operations.
Meanwhile, Ukraine’s army chief, Gen Oleksandr Syrskyi, has condemned recent violent attacks on draft officers, which have intensified amid a faltering mobilisation campaign. Attacks, including the fatal shooting of a draft officer and bombings at recruitment centres, have complicated efforts to bolster the country’s manpower.
Ukraine’s Resource Wealth and Strategic Calculations
Ukraine, heavily reliant on Western military aid, faces a critical situation as resource-rich areas, such as the Krutaja Balka site near Berdyansk, remain under Russian occupation. Despite these losses, Ukraine retains significant reserves of lithium, graphite, titanium, and uranium, which are crucial for its future economic stability.
While Scholz dismisses the idea of trading these resources for security assistance, Ukraine’s government may see strategic value in leveraging its natural wealth to strengthen its alliances. Trump’s insistence on securing American access to Ukraine’s resources reflects a broader shift in U.S. foreign policy, prioritising economic and strategic interests over unconditional military support.
Germany’s Role as a Key Military Donor
Under Scholz’s leadership, Germany has emerged as Ukraine’s second-largest military donor, behind the United States. However, the chancellor has faced criticism for resisting the delivery of Taurus long-range cruise missiles, citing fears of escalation.
Scholz has also delayed additional military assistance worth €3 billion ($3.09 billion), arguing that the expenditure should be covered by additional government borrowing. The plan, supported by German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and Defence Minister Boris Pistorius, includes the provision of three additional Iris-T air defence batteries, 10 howitzers, and increased artillery ammunition.
Wider Implications and International Reactions
Beyond the battlefield, Ukraine’s rare earths are gaining increasing geopolitical significance. Trump’s proposed quid pro quo approach has drawn criticism from European leaders, with Scholz and others warning that such a demand risks undermining Ukraine’s post-war recovery.
The broader security landscape remains tense, with reports emerging that Russian forces have been executing captured Ukrainian soldiers. The UN has recorded 79 such executions in recent months. Meanwhile, Moldova has accused Russia of violating its airspace with a drone incursion, as tensions persist in the region.
As European leaders debate further support for Ukraine, Scholz’s stance underscores ongoing divisions over how best to balance military aid, economic support, and geopolitical interests in the conflict. Meanwhile, Trump’s proposal signals a shift in the U.S. approach that could have lasting implications for Ukraine’s strategic partnerships and resource management.
Read also:
Zelensky’s Victory Roadmap: 5 Points to End the War with Russia