Highlights

• President Trump suggests tying continued military aid for Ukraine to US access to rare earth minerals.
• Global leaders like Germany's Scholz criticize the proposal as 'selfish and self-centered'.
• Zelensky appears open to potential investment deals involving mineral resources with supporting nations.

---

As we reported the other day, President Trump is attempting to tie continued military aid for Ukraine to US access to the rare earth minerals located in that nation. This somewhat radical move looks bad in many ways. For one thing, Trump was supposed to find an end to the slaughter that is the Ukraine-Russia war. With the US financially benefitting from ongoing war via mineral concessions, what would be the incentive for peace? At the same time, it is arguably a major betrayal of Ukraine. Two weeks into the war there was a peace deal on the table, and the UK and US basically ordered Ukraine to stay in the fight. Doing that and then demanding minerals is a stain on our nation. In the meantime, various media outlets have reported fallout from the initial Trump statement.

Does Russia want to end the conflict?

On February 4, the Russian news Tass reported (opens in a new tab) on statements from the Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov. He noted, “This is an offer [to Ukraine] to buy aid, that is, not to continue to provide it on a gratuitous or other basis, but to provide it on a commercial basis."  He added that it is best "not to provide assistance [to Ukraine] at all and thereby contribute to the end of the conflict."

Selfish and self-centered?

In the meantime, per the Kyiv Independent (opens in a new tab) of February 4, German Chancellor Olof Scholz is slamming the Trump proposal. Scholz called the idea “very selfish and self-centered.” He pointed out that Ukraine would need all its resources to rebuild after the devastating conflict. Separately, one source in Zelensky’s office said that sharing resources was already part of a “victory plan” that had been shared with Trump and other leaders. So, it’s not clear whose idea this was in the first place.

Zelensky said proposals fair?

Also, on February 4, The Guardian weighed in (opens in a new tab) on Zelensky’s seeming support for the weapons-for-minerals idea, as long as it involves investment rather than simply taking resources. The Ukrainian president said he was open to “investment.” Ukrainian media also reported that the REE idea could have started in Kyiv to keep weapons flowing.

No one knows if Trump wants free minerals or simply some kind of favorable deal. It was not clear if Trump meant a deal in which Ukraine supplied minerals free of charge in exchange for US military aid or simply one in which Ukraine agreed to sell them at a “favorable” rate. Zelensky also said that his nation was open to these possible investments with “partners who help us defend our land and push the enemy back with their weapons, their presence, and sanctions packages. And this is absolutely fair.” The minerals in question are worth trillions of dollars per Zelensky.

Overall, a bad idea

The U.S. government seems to be radically restructuring, and the pace of President Trump’s actions leaves one unable to digest it all. But the US essentially ordering Ukraine to “pay up” seems like a betrayal, as many have noted. Again, planning for more war seems like a poor way to work for peace. Will the Art of the Deal pay peace dividends?