The Presidents of the United States and Ukraine are on a talking spree that is not exactly helping tone down a war that has completed three years now. Miffed perhaps at the refusal of Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy to sign away a minerals deal, President Donald Trump unleashed a barrage of accusations including that of “dictator” having lost the support of people and refusing to hold elections, starting a war and “tricking” Washington into spending billions.
And for his part President Zelenskyy has said that he is willing to step down for the sake of peace, but not without security guarantees by way of a ticket into the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
The back and forth between Washington and Kyiv has raised many pertinent questions in Europe which sees a totally new ballgame over the conflict in the Ukraine including an attempt to shift the blame to Zelenskyy for having started the war.
Many have pointed out that Russian President Vladimir Putin himself admitted to have started a “special military operation” on February 24, 2022 for “demilitarization and denazification” of Ukraine and in the course of the war resulting in the loss of thousands of lives on both sides and physical destruction. By shifting the blame the allegation has been that Trump has thrown Zelenskyy and Europe under the bus.
Mineral angle
Yet another sore point in the goings on between the US and Ukraine over the last six weeks has been on a so-called “rare earths” or “minerals” deal. Different numbers have been thrown around on what Kyiv owes Washington for the amount of money given during the course of the conflict — $500 billion or $350 billion. The bottomline has been that Zelenskyy refuses to sign on any dotted line that in his view would jeopardise the future of generations of Ukrainians.
For the most part, the “rare earths” that Trump is looking at in the framework of national security would include lithium, uranium, graphite and titanium. But experts make the point that exploration and exploitation of all these minerals are only at theoretical stages. Any deal would undoubtedly have to be a long-term one taking into account the values at extraction and what exactly is owed by Ukraine.
An argument has been made that American contribution would only be $183 billion or $203 billion if the G-7’s $20 billion of acceleration loans initiative is factored in. It is also stressed that of the total funds appropriated by Congress, a substantial portion was spent in the US itself on weapons manufacturers and on American military and government operations.
Political hurdles
Politically, there are hurdles to clear as well. It will be difficult for Trump to pull off a deal on the Ukraine conflict just by coming to terms with Putin. The argument that Zelenskyy sat at the table for three years with nothing is unlikely to wash with Kyiv or Europe. By the same token signing a minerals deal with Kyiv is unlikely to bring about a ceasefire or return of lost territories on both sides. Importantly, Zelenskyy will have to understand that his defiant stance on being a part of NATO is a non-starter.
For a good part of his time in the Kremlin, Putin has been making the point that any expansion of NATO would have to keep in mind the security/strategic interests of Moscow. In 1962 the Kennedy administration told the erstwhile Soviet Union that it would not permit nuclear missiles in Cuba, seen as the back yard of America. Sixty-odd years later, it is highly unlikely that Putin will be comfortable at the NATO whistling in his front yard.
The writer is a senior journalist who has reported from Washington DC on North America and UN
