In a bold and unconventional move, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky devised a high-stakes plan aimed at securing long-term U.S. support in his country’s war-torn standoff with Russia. His strategy involved offering something few world leaders have dared to negotiate with so openly: access to Ukraine’s vast trove of natural resources.
The proposition was direct, and the venue symbolic—Trump Tower in New York City. There, Zelensky made his pitch to former U.S. President Donald Trump in a private meeting, hoping to tie American support to a potentially lucrative economic incentive.
This outreach came despite Trump having recently derided Zelensky as “the greatest salesman in history”—a jab at the Ukrainian leader’s ability to secure billions in aid from the U.S. Still, Zelensky’s gamble seemed to pay off, at least initially. Trump, well known for his transactional worldview, expressed interest in the deal. Yet few at the time could have anticipated the potential ramifications: how this resource-for-support bargain could jeopardize Ukraine’s sovereignty, reshape the geopolitical chessboard, and test the limits of Western unity against Russian aggression.
The Vatican Breakthrough
After months of delicate backchannel negotiations, the most significant progress came not in Washington or Kyiv, but in the halls of the Vatican. In a lavish, high-profile meeting, Zelensky informed Trump that Ukraine was ready to finalize the deal. “We’ve achieved the first fruits of this meeting,” Zelensky later said in a press briefing, calling the agreement “historic.”
The road to this moment, however, was anything but smooth. Tensions flared during several negotiation rounds, including heated arguments inside the White House and threats of the deal’s collapse. The most dramatic scenes unfolded in the final hours leading up to the agreement. In the preceding week, both governments signed a preliminary memorandum allowing U.S. companies priority access to Ukraine’s critical minerals—lithium, aluminum, titanium, graphite, oil, and natural gas.
A Geopolitical Gamble
In what many analysts are now calling a high-stakes diplomatic maneuver, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky appears to have played a calculated game to align himself with Donald Trump’s transactional worldview.
The recently announced agreement between the U.S. and Ukraine—part economic pact, part political message—served not only to stabilize Ukraine’s position in an increasingly fragmented global order but also to appeal directly to Trump’s sense of deal-making.
For Ukraine, the agreement offered more than just economic hope—it provided a psychological and strategic reprieve. With Trump leading in many Republican primary polls and his possible return to the White House looming large, Kyiv faced a chilling prospect: that Trump, skeptical of long-term military entanglements and driven by a “America First” ideology, might cut a deal with Vladimir Putin, thereby freezing U.S. support for Ukraine’s war effort. The agreement, therefore, became a subtle insurance policy.
Trump, for his part, saw the deal as a win he could sell to his base. He has repeatedly argued that the United States had been overly generous in its aid to Ukraine without reaping any concrete returns.
This agreement—with its visible economic dimensions and implicit assurances of strategic cooperation—offered him something to point to. In his framing, it was less about supporting a war-torn democracy and more about restoring “balance” to what he viewed as a lopsided relationship.
Senior U.S. Treasury officials were quick to underscore the broader significance of the pact. “This partnership isn’t just about trade. It’s about peace and signaling to Moscow that we are invested not just as allies, but as stakeholders,” said one high-ranking official.
In effect, the agreement served two purposes: securing Ukraine’s economic future while also embedding its struggle within a framework that even Trump, with his realist inclinations, could embrace.
This moment represents a masterclass in diplomatic tailoring. Zelensky, understanding Trump’s preference for deals that appear mutually beneficial on paper, recast Ukraine not as a dependent ally pleading for help but as a potential partner offering value.
By packaging the deal in terms that aligned with Trump’s worldview—economic returns, shared interests, strategic leverage—Zelensky effectively made his country’s case not through moral appeals, but through the language of transactional politics.
It’s a gamble, yes. But for Ukraine, it might just be the one play that keeps Washington engaged—no matter who wins in November.
Operation “Victory Plan” of Zelensky
This agreement didn’t materialize overnight. According to classified documents from the Ukrainian President’s office, interviews with over a dozen Ukrainian officials, and insights from American and European diplomats, the origin of this plan dates back to the previous summer. Zelensky instructed his advisors to develop a framework that would guarantee long-term U.S. support while advancing Ukraine’s position on the battlefield.
The resulting five-point blueprint, dubbed the “Victory Plan,” included proposals for a security pact, increased military aid, and economic cooperation—most notably, by opening Ukraine’s mineral sector to Western investment. The plan was reportedly inspired in part by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who suggested leveraging Ukraine’s resource potential to attract bipartisan support in Washington.
Despite this, President Joe Biden remained cautious. He feared the initiative might provoke a dangerous escalation with Moscow or strain America’s own strategic reserves. Nonetheless, the White House continued to quietly negotiate an economic version of the plan.
Trump’s Terms: Business First, Security Later
During Zelensky’s visit to Trump Tower, he personally presented the outlines of the deal. Trump, branding himself as the “master of the deal,” grew visibly enthusiastic at the idea of securing access to rare earth elements in exchange for past and future U.S. aid. Polls at the time showed Trump with a significant lead in the Republican primaries, prompting Zelensky’s advisors to reconsider their strategy.
They decided to reduce engagement with the Biden administration and instead plan for a potential Trump return to power. Just two weeks after assuming office in his second term, Trump openly declared that the U.S. was ready to support Ukraine—but only if Washington could secure a controlling interest in Ukraine’s most valuable resources. “Their rare earth minerals are phenomenal,” he reportedly told aides. “I want to lock them down.”
The Shocking Proposal
What followed stunned even seasoned Ukrainian diplomats. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent arrived in Kyiv on a night train with a draft agreement in hand. According to the proposal, the United States would claim 50% ownership of Ukraine’s rare earth and critical mineral resources. In return, there would be no formal commitment to security or military aid.
President Zelensky was informed of this just one hour before a scheduled meeting. U.S. Ambassador Bridget Brink rushed to his office with the draft, informing him that Secretary Bessent expected a signature before departing. Zelensky reportedly erupted in anger. The meeting grew so heated that staff outside the room could hear the yelling. Later, speaking to reporters, he stated, “This deal doesn’t serve our interests today, nor does it serve an independent Ukraine.” His main concern: the complete absence of any defense guarantees.
Tactical Misunderstandings
European and Ukrainian diplomats began to worry that Zelensky had failed to articulate Ukraine’s red lines clearly. A senior EU diplomat put it bluntly: “This deal was designed to please Trump. But due to a lack of clarity, Trump set his own price.”
A senior Ukrainian official later admitted, “We should have made it clear from the start: economic cooperation must be linked to future defense aid.” Instead, Ukraine found itself negotiating from a position of desperation, while Trump wielded leverage like a seasoned dealmaker.
Trump later claimed that, considering past aid, the U.S. was entitled to at least $500 billion worth of Ukrainian resources. Ukrainian lawmakers were outraged. When no military commitment was offered in return, some likened the arrangement to “extortion” and “blackmail.”
A Fragile Compromise
Still, Zelensky pushed for a resolution. Under pressure, he even instructed Ukrainian intelligence services to investigate leaks concerning the draft agreement. On April 18, a virtual framework memorandum was signed to relaunch talks. Later that month, Zelensky and Trump met again—this time at the Vatican in Rome.
Trump, speaking to reporters, remarked, “I told him a deal would be wise. Russia is very big and very strong.” The final compromise was a watered-down version of the original U.S. proposal. It abandoned claims on past aid and instead focused on future revenue-sharing and joint oversight mechanisms.
However, there was one last twist. As Ukrainian representative Yulia Svyrydenko was preparing to fly to Washington for the final signing, she was suddenly handed two additional documents and told to sign them—or go home. Kyiv initially resisted, citing parliamentary approval as a prerequisite. But in an emergency Cabinet meeting, Svyrydenko was given executive permission to bypass legislative consent and ink the deal.
Photos from the signing ceremony quickly circulated online. Standing outside the U.S. Treasury Building, Svyrydenko smiled for a selfie and declared, “This is a symbol of our partnership.”
The Deal’s Uncertain Future
While the agreement has been signed, it has yet to be fully ratified by the Ukrainian parliament, and implementation remains a logistical challenge. Its long-term success will depend not just on the legal fine print, but on the fragile, often volatile relationship between Trump and Zelensky.
Opposition MP Inna Sovsun summed up the dilemma aptly: “We were choosing not between good and bad, but between bad and worse.” Still, she conceded, “What we got is comparatively better than where we started.”
Read More : Who is activist Mohsen Mahdawi?