The Collapse of the US-Ukraine Mineral Agreement: Implications for International Order and Ukraine's Future

The recent diplomatic confrontation between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House has sent shockwaves through the international community.

What was intended to be a signing ceremony for a mineral agreement between the two nations deteriorated into an open dispute, ultimately resulting in President Trump asking President Zelensky to leave.

This dramatic breakdown not only represents a failure in bilateral relations but signals a profound shift in America's approach to the Ukraine conflict and international order more broadly.

The incident highlights the stark contrast between the previous U.S. administration's portrayal of Zelensky as a democratic champion and Trump's transactional approach that appears more aligned with Russian narratives.

This report examines the causes and consequences of this diplomatic rupture, its implications for the liberal international order, and explores potential paths forward for Ukraine in this drastically altered geopolitical landscape where power politics increasingly supersedes rules-based governance.

The Trump-Zelensky Confrontation: An Unprecedented Diplomatic Breakdown

The meeting between President Trump and President Zelensky on February 28, 2025, at the White House was meant to culminate in the signing of a significant mineral agreement between the United States and Ukraine. Instead, it ended with President Trump demanding that President Zelensky leave the White House following a heated exchange during what was supposed to be their preliminary public remarks1.

The subsequent schedule, which included a private meeting, joint press conference, and the mineral agreement signing ceremony, was abruptly canceled11.

President Zelensky departed the White House with a visibly stern expression, refusing to engage with press questions, marking one of the most dramatic diplomatic failures in recent U.S.-Ukraine relations1.

The confrontation appears to have centered around fundamental disagreements regarding the terms of the mineral agreement and Ukraine's approach to ending the war with Russia.

During the public portion of their meeting, Zelensky emphasized the need for security guarantees as a condition for any peace agreement, pointing out that "Putin has violated his signature 25 times" and asserting that Ukraine cannot accept a simple ceasefire11.

In response, Trump countered with the claim that without American support, Ukraine "would have lost within two weeks" and suggested that Zelensky should show gratitude rather than making demands11.

This exchange reveals the deep philosophical divide between the two leaders—one fighting for his nation's survival and security guarantees, the other approaching the relationship through a transactional lens focused on American interests and immediate conflict resolution.

The diplomatic rupture did not occur in isolation but followed weeks of building tension. Just days before the failed summit, Trump had made controversial statements at his administration's first cabinet meeting, declaring that Ukraine must "forget about NATO membership" and that Europe, not the United States, should be responsible for Ukraine's security guarantees6.

These statements signaled a fundamental shift in America's approach to Ukrainian security that directly contradicted promises made by previous administrations, setting the stage for the confrontational meeting that followed.

The Controversial Mineral Agreement: Economic Exploitation or Strategic Partnership?

At the heart of the failed summit was a proposed mineral agreement that had been under negotiation for months. The agreement aimed to establish a framework for joint development of Ukraine's substantial mineral resources, including rare earth elements crucial for modern technology12.

For the Trump administration, this agreement represented a strategic opportunity to reduce America's dependence on China for critical minerals, a concern that had been growing since 2018 amid escalating trade tensions8.

Zelensky had previously expressed serious reservations about the terms of this agreement. In a press conference on February 23, 2025, he revealed that the proposed agreement included provisions requiring Ukraine to repay twice the amount of aid received from the United States—effectively turning assistance into a high-interest loan. "According to the agreement, for every dollar of aid, Ukraine must return two dollars," Zelensky explained, characterizing the arrangement as "simply a 100% loan. We must repay the principal plus an additional 100%"2.

He further calculated that given Ukraine's mineral resource revenues, repaying the proposed $500 billion fund would take approximately 250 years—a debt burden that would fall upon "ten generations" of Ukrainians2.

The mineral agreement negotiations exposed a fundamental tension in US-Ukraine relations. For the Trump administration, the agreement represented a pragmatic business arrangement that would secure American access to critical resources while theoretically providing Ukraine with economic development opportunities.

Trump's position was that American investment in Ukraine's mineral sector would itself serve as a form of security guarantee, with the presence of American workers creating an economic interest that would deter future Russian aggression12.

For Zelensky, however, the agreement's terms appeared exploitative, potentially surrendering Ukraine's natural resource wealth for generations in exchange for immediate aid, without the concrete security guarantees needed to prevent future Russian aggression.

Shifting US Foreign Policy: From Democracy Promotion to Transactional Diplomacy

The failed mineral agreement and the broader approach of the Trump administration toward Ukraine represent a dramatic shift from the policies of previous U.S. administrations.

During the Obama-Biden era, Ukraine was consistently portrayed as a frontline state in the defense of democracy against authoritarianism. The Biden administration, in particular, framed its international leadership as centered on "restoring international leadership to strengthen international solidarity to protect the rule-based normative order"7. In this framework, supporting Ukraine's territorial integrity and democratic governance was not merely a matter of strategic interest but a moral imperative tied to the defense of a rules-based international system.

Trump's approach, by contrast, appears fundamentally transactional, prioritizing immediate American economic interests over broader principles of international order or democratic solidarity. This shift is evident in his repeated suggestions that Ukraine bears responsibility for the conflict with Russia.

In a February 18, 2025 press conference, Trump claimed that "Zelensky should not have started the war" and that Ukraine "should have avoided war through negotiations from the beginning"13. Such statements invert the widely accepted understanding of Russia as the aggressor, instead suggesting that Ukraine's failure to accept Russian demands was the primary cause of the conflict—a narrative that closely aligns with Russian positions.

The transactional nature of Trump's foreign policy is further evidenced by his administration's approach to the mineral agreement negotiations. Rather than positioning American support for Ukraine as an investment in a rules-based international order, the Trump administration explicitly linked continued support to economic concessions.

This represents a fundamental reconceptualization of the US-Ukraine relationship from one based on shared values and strategic alignment to one defined primarily by material exchange. This shift has profound implications not only for Ukraine but for all U.S. allies who may now question the reliability and consistency of American support.

Russia's Narrative Gains Ground: Reframing the Ukraine Conflict

Perhaps the most consequential aspect of the Trump-Zelensky confrontation is how it has legitimized Russian narratives about the Ukraine conflict. Since the beginning of the war, Russia has maintained that its actions were defensive responses to Western encroachment and Ukrainian hostility rather than unprovoked aggression. Trump's statement that Zelensky "should not have started the war" directly echoes this Russian framing of the conflict13, significantly undermining the international consensus regarding Russia's role as the aggressor.

Trump has also embraced other elements of the Russian position on Ukraine. He has called for Ukraine to hold elections despite the ongoing war and martial law, suggesting that Zelensky's democratic legitimacy is questionable3. This aligns with longstanding Russian demands for Ukrainian elections, which Western analysts have understood as an attempt to install a more pro-Russian government in Kyiv.

The Telegraph reported that during US-Russia talks in Riyadh, both countries agreed that elections should be held in Ukraine before any final peace agreement—an extraordinary concession to Russian demands that sidelines Ukraine's own agency in determining its political processes3.

Trump's personal relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin has also raised concerns. According to respected journalist Bob Woodward, Trump maintained contact with Putin after leaving office and has expressed admiration for the Russian leader, reportedly stating that "no president has received as much respect in Russia"5.

These personal dynamics may be influencing Trump's approach to the Ukraine conflict, potentially privileging his relationship with Putin over America's longstanding support for Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The Crumbling Liberal International Order: A Return to Great Power Politics

The deterioration of US-Ukraine relations under the Trump administration represents more than a bilateral diplomatic failure; it signals a profound shift in the nature of the international order. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has championed a liberal international order based on rules, democratic values, and multilateral institutions.

The support for Ukraine following Russia's invasion was framed within this paradigm—as defense of the principle that borders cannot be changed by force and that smaller states have the right to determine their own futures regardless of the interests of nearby great powers.

The current approach of the Trump administration, however, appears to embrace a different vision of international order more aligned with what Russia has been advocating—a "multi-regional, multipolar order" based on power politics rather than rules and norms10.

In this conception, powerful states have privileged spheres of influence where their interests take precedence over the sovereignty rights of smaller states. The suggestion that Ukraine should have negotiated with Russia rather than resisting its territorial demands implicitly accepts this power-based understanding of international relations.

This shift has major implications beyond Ukraine.

As noted in search result6, the Trump administration appears to be "standing with so-called 'rogue states' such as Russia and North Korea," causing the international order to be "in turmoil"6.

U.S. allies around the world, particularly those facing threats from powerful neighbors, may now question the reliability of American security guarantees and the sustainability of a rules-based order that the United States itself no longer consistently upholds. This could accelerate the transition to a more multipolar system characterized by competing regional powers and reduced global governance.

Power Politics Ascendant: Great Power Competition and Regional Blocs

The collapse of the US-Ukraine mineral agreement negotiations and the broader shift in U.S. foreign policy under Trump can be understood as part of a larger transition in global politics from a unipolar American-led order to a more competitive multipolar system.

According to analysis from search result10, Russia's actions in Ukraine represent a direct challenge to the proposition articulated by Zbigniew Brzezinski that the United States must prevent the emergence of a hegemonic power or alliance in Eurasia10.

By aligning more closely with Russia and showing less commitment to traditional U.S. allies, the current administration is effectively abandoning this long-held strategic principle.

This shift creates space for the formation of new power blocs and regional orders. Russia has been promoting what analysts describe as a "Grand Eurasian Project" aimed at creating an alternative to the U.S.-led liberal international order10.

By reducing American opposition to this project, the current U.S. approach may accelerate the development of competing regional systems. Meanwhile, the European Union may be pushed toward greater strategic autonomy, with Trump explicitly stating that Europe, not the United States, should take responsibility for Ukraine's security6.

In the economic realm, these shifts are equally significant. Search result16 notes that the United States has been implementing "de-risking" strategies to address trade deficits with China, including export controls with extraterritorial application16.

The push for a mineral agreement with Ukraine can be understood as part of this broader economic security strategy. However, the confrontational approach embodied in the failed Trump-Zelensky meeting suggests that even economic partnerships are being subordinated to a more nakedly transactional approach to international relations that may further fragment the global economic system.

Ukraine's Path Forward: Navigating a Hostile Geopolitical Landscape

For Ukraine, the failure of the White House meeting and the collapse of the mineral agreement negotiations present an existential challenge. Having oriented its foreign policy around Western integration and opposition to Russian domination, Ukraine now faces a situation where its principal supporter—the United States—appears to be shifting toward a position more accommodating of Russian interests. This leaves Ukraine with difficult choices about how to secure its sovereignty and rebuild its war-torn economy.

One potential approach would be to diversify Ukraine's international partnerships beyond exclusive reliance on the United States.

The European Union remains committed to supporting Ukraine, both economically and in terms of security, though its capacity to replace American military aid is limited. Ukraine might also seek to strengthen ties with other middle powers like the United Kingdom, Canada, and Japan, which have been supportive of Ukraine's cause and may be less susceptible to dramatic policy shifts based on changes in leadership.

On the economic front, Ukraine will need to reconsider its approach to resource development. The failed mineral agreement with the United States was premised on exchanging access to Ukraine's mineral wealth for immediate financial and security assistance.

While some form of international partnership for resource development remains necessary given Ukraine's devastated economy, any future agreements should avoid the potentially exploitative terms that reportedly characterized the U.S. proposal. As President Zelensky noted, an arrangement requiring Ukraine to repay twice the value of aid received would burden "ten generations" of Ukrainians2—an unsustainable proposition for a country seeking to rebuild.

Ukraine might also need to recalibrate its negotiating position regarding the conflict with Russia. President Trump's suggestion that Ukraine bears responsibility for the war and should have negotiated earlier13 signals that the United States under his leadership may pressure Ukraine toward territorial concessions to Russia.

While such concessions would be politically toxic within Ukraine and would reward Russian aggression, the reality of diminished U.S. support may force difficult compromises. However, Ukraine should resist any settlement that does not include robust security guarantees, as President Zelensky correctly noted when he stated that "Putin has violated his signature 25 times"11.

Conclusion: The Future of International Order in a Transactional Era

The dramatic collapse of the US-Ukraine mineral agreement negotiations at the White House represents more than a diplomatic incident; it signals a profound shift in the nature of international politics.

The liberal international order that dominated the post-Cold War era—characterized by rules-based governance, respect for territorial sovereignty, and at least rhetorical commitment to democratic values—appears to be giving way to a more nakedly transactional system where power dictates outcomes and smaller states must accommodate the interests of regional hegemons.

For countries like Ukraine caught in the transition between these systems, the path forward is treacherous. Having oriented their national strategies around integration with a rules-based Western order, they now face the prospect of navigating a world where that order is crumbling and where former champions of liberal principles are increasingly adopting the language and approaches of their authoritarian rivals. This requires new strategies focused on resilience, diversification of partnerships, and careful balancing of principles against pragmatic necessities.

The implications extend far beyond Ukraine or even Europe. In Asia, countries facing Chinese territorial assertions, in the Middle East, states navigating regional power competitions, and in Africa, nations balancing relationships with competing external powers—all must now reconsider strategies premised on American leadership of a rules-based order.

The new reality appears to be one where transactional diplomacy trumps principled commitments, where spheres of influence take precedence over sovereign rights, and where the protection once offered by international norms is increasingly subordinated to raw power calculations.

Whether this transition proves temporary or represents a more permanent shift in the character of international relations remains to be seen. What is clear is that the vision of a world order built on universal rules rather than power politics—a vision that survived two world wars and a cold war—faces its greatest challenge since its inception. The failed meeting between Presidents Trump and Zelensky may one day be remembered as a pivotal moment in that transformation.

Citations:

1. https://www.yna.co.kr/amp/view/AKR20250301005052071

2. https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/international/america/1183830.html

3. https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/international/america/1183195.html

4. https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/international/america/713985.html

5. https://news.kbs.co.kr/news/view.do?ncd=8085026

6. https://www.yna.co.kr/amp/view/MYH20250227005400038

7. https://www.kiep.go.kr/gallery.es?mid=a10101050000&bid=0001&list_no=11438&act=view

8. https://www.jksmer.or.kr/articles/pdf/vZWg/ksmer-2023-060-05S-8.pdf

9. https://brunch.co.kr/@@2fbJ/686

10. https://snuac.snu.ac.kr/?p=39950

11. https://www.spnews.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=92643