The long-awaited meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump, Volodymyr Zelensky and U.S. Vice President JD Vance took place on February 28 at the White House. The main objective of the meeting was the signing of the now famous agreement regarding the exploitation of Ukrainian strategic minerals by the United States. However, the meeting turned into a heated confrontation in front of the world’s media, culminating in the breakdown of negotiations and the early departure of the Ukrainian delegation after the press conference was cancelled.
Ukraine possesses large reserves of strategic minerals, including lithium, graphite, cobalt and titanium, which are critical to the technology and renewable energy industries. Due to the ongoing conflict with Russia, Ukraine’s economy has been severely compromised, making the country completely dependent on Western aid, both financial and military. Against this backdrop, the U.S. put forward a proposal for an agreement that covered the joint exploitation of these resources, with the stated intent of supporting Ukraine’s reconstruction while securing stable supplies of critical minerals for U.S. industry as a kind of compensation for the hundreds of billions of dollars that had been poured into Kiev.
According to drafts of the agreement, a joint investment fund would have been established, to which Ukraine would have contributed 50 percent of the proceeds from the exploitation of its natural resources, including gas and oil. These funds would have been earmarked for subsequent investments in the country, with the aim of stimulating economic growth and regional stability. The United States, however, would have had preferential mining rights over any strategic mineral deposits in Ukraine, even those that may not yet have been discovered. An agreement that many experts have judged to be in the same league as a call for war reparations, as if Ukraine had not lost a war with Russia, but directly with the United States. A paradox. In fact, Zelensky had refused an initial signing of this agreement, infuriating the U.S. administration, which was anxious to secure payback for its support for Kiev. Diplomacy had then been activated, which had tried mediation, and perhaps Zelensky’s advisers had also been activated, who seemed to have agreed to give Trump what he asked for. Indeed, Trump hoped with this agreement to bring a big result to his constituents, who were anxious to see the United States repaid for the enormous support given to Ukraine over the years.
The meeting, initially planned as a formality for signing the agreement, quickly took a totally unexpected turn. During the discussion, significant differences emerged regarding the terms of the agreement and the expectations of the parties involved. Zelensky expressed the need for security guarantees from the United States, stressing that a simple cease-fire would not be sufficient.
Vice President Vance responded harshly to these objections, criticizing the Ukrainian position, saying that Ukraine was not in a position to dictate conditions and that it should have shown more gratitude for the assistance it received from the United States. The situation then escalated in front of the world’s major media when President Trump accused Zelensky of being disrespectful and “playing with World War III,” pointing out that the United States had provided very important support to Ukraine and that it was time for Kiev to show more gratitude.
The meeting’s abrupt conclusion prompted several international reactions. In Europe, many leaders expressed concern over the incident and reiterated their support for Ukraine. The British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, stated that the UK would continue to support Ukraine.
Within the United States, reactions were sharper. Members of the Republican Party praised Trump and Vance’s firm stance, stressing the need to protect U.S. interests and to demand greater responsibility from European allies, another topic close to Donald Trump’s heart. In contrast, members of the Democratic Party criticized the administration for what they called its “aggressive” approach to a struggling ally, warning that such behavior could weaken international alliances and undermine the U.S. position on the world stage.
Zelensky, after leaving the White House, issued a statement in which he thanked the American people for their support but stressed the need to obtain security guarantees for Ukraine. He also added that he deeply respected the American people, a response to a statement Trump had made during the meeting, accusing Zelensky of ingratitude and being disrespectful to Americans. Zelensky also reiterated his country’s commitment to seeking a “just peace” and lasting peace, expressing hope that future negotiations can take place in an atmosphere of greater mutual understanding.
In Russia, of course, images of the sound humiliation inflicted on Zelensky quickly made the rounds of all the media. The meeting was evidently interpreted as a loss of support from Ukraine’s major Western partner, and Dimitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council, made some very harsh comments. Maria Zakharova, a spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, praised the “restraint” shown by Trump and Vance in not reacting physically to Zelensky’s provocations, calling it a “miracle of self-control,” underscoring the Ukrainian leader’s dismissive behavior toward his biggest supporters. In light of what happened, the strategic advantage for Moscow is overwhelming.
Trump told Zelensky to “come back when he is ready” to talk peace, but the failure to sign the strategic minerals agreement will lead to several consequences for Ukraine and its economic and military situation. It is not yet clear how this episode, which will surely be remembered by history will affect the situation on the ground, but Trump wanted to reiterate a concept that has now become crystal clear to Zelensky and even the world press: the United States sees itself as the “master” of Ukraine and regards Zelensky as the same as an apartment building manager.
