As US and Ukrainian negotiators gear up for crucial discussions this week in Saudi Arabia, former President Donald Trump appears to be taking significant steps to complicate life for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky while simultaneously enhancing Russia’s strategic foothold. Over the weekend, high-ranking officials from the Trump administration disclosed that the former President is now insisting on more than just Zelensky’s endorsement of a minerals agreement that would grant the White House ownership rights to unspecified quantities of rare earth elements for generations to come.
Last week, after Trump unilaterally suspended intelligence sharing with Ukraine and delayed the delivery of critical arms shipments to Kyiv, he continued to issue vague demands to Zelensky following their contentious meeting in the Oval Office last month. “We look forward to hearing more positive movement that will hopefully ultimately end this brutal war and bloodshed,” remarked Brian Hughes, a spokesperson for Trump’s National Security Council on Sunday. However, the term “positive movement” can be quite subjective, leaving many to wonder what criteria Zelensky must fulfill to gain Trump’s favor.
Following a tense 45-minute televised confrontation with Trump and Vice President JD Vance on February 28, Zelensky was instructed to exit the White House and return only when he demonstrated a “serious” commitment to peace. In the days that followed, buoyed by the support of European leaders, Zelensky signaled his willingness to sign the minerals deal imposed by Trump, although he insisted it must include solid security guarantees for Ukraine.
Trump continues to be evasive regarding his commitment to provide the necessary “backstop” for peacekeepers, a demand put forth by both Zelensky and UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. The infamous Oval Office confrontation between Trump, Zelensky, and Vance on February 28 has left lingering questions about the nature of US support for Ukraine (Photo: Mystyslav Chernov/AP).
When Trump withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine, he claimed he needed further assurance that Zelensky was “serious” about pursuing a ceasefire. Yet, publicly, there are no clear indicators of what specific actions Zelensky must undertake to satisfy the US leader. In the days that followed, Trump has echoed Kremlin narratives and hinted at a unique understanding with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Following another extensive Russian bombardment of Ukraine last Friday, he told reporters that Putin “wants to get it stopped… and he’s hitting them harder than he’s been hitting them. I think probably anyone in that position would be doing that right now,” failing to denounce Russia’s aggression.
“Ukraine wants to make a deal because I don’t think they have a choice,” Trump added. “Russia also wants to make a deal because… in a certain different way that only I know… they have no choice either.” The White House has remained tight-lipped about what insights Trump possesses regarding Putin’s motivations, and it has not disclosed how frequently the two leaders have communicated. Nevertheless, Trump’s remarks underscore the perception that he is prioritizing Putin’s interests in the peace negotiations even before they formally commence.
Upcoming Meetings and Uncertainties
Ukrainian officials have stated that Zelensky intends to leverage this week’s meeting with Trump’s representatives in Riyadh to gain more clarity on the specific expectations from the United States. It remains uncertain whether Ukraine will sign the minerals agreement during these discussions or hold out for renewed American efforts to restrain Putin’s military actions.
On Friday, Trump hinted on social media that he was “strongly considering” imposing “large-scale” new sanctions and tariffs on Moscow. However, over the weekend, no further developments regarding these measures emerged, and there was no indication that the US Treasury was preparing any announcements ahead of the Riyadh talks.
Trump maintains that he stands “in the middle” between Russia and Ukraine, often dismissing inquiries about his capability to act as an impartial mediator. Yet, by consistently undermining not just Ukraine’s leadership but also the nation’s ongoing suffering due to Russian attacks, his actions suggest a greater empathy for the aggressor than for the afflicted.
