Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky is set to meet US President Donald Trump in Washington this Friday to finalize a deal granting the US access to Ukraine’s rare earth minerals. While this agreement has been touted as a potential win for both nations, the deal raises more questions than answers.

Zelensky has made it clear that this is only a preliminary agreement and that no security guarantees have been locked in. Meanwhile, Trump is framing the deal as a way for American taxpayers to “get their money back” after billions in aid have been sent to Ukraine. However, he also believes that Ukraine’s security is Europe’s problem, not America’s. So, what exactly does this deal entail, and where does it leave Ukraine in its war with Russia?

What Are the Terms of the Deal?

So far, the specifics remain under wraps, but Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal did shed some light on the structure. A so-called “investment fund” will be established, jointly managed by Kyiv and Washington, with Ukraine committing 50% of future proceeds from its mineral resources, oil, and gas to this fund. The idea is to use these funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy.

However, a source within Ukraine’s government has confirmed that initial US demands—reportedly as high as $500 billion in mineral wealth—have been dropped. The revised deal is apparently “much better” for Ukraine, though the full details remain unclear.

Trump, on his part, has been throwing around big numbers, claiming the US has given Ukraine somewhere between $300-$350 billion in aid. But the Kiel Institute estimates that the actual figure is closer to $119 billion. With this deal, Trump wants a return on investment, positioning mineral access as a form of repayment.

Does the Deal Include a Security Guarantee?

Short answer: No. And that’s a problem for Zelensky.

Trump has been clear that America will not go beyond “very much” in terms of security commitments. His argument is that it’s Europe’s responsibility. However, he did suggest that the presence of American workers in Ukraine—presumably mining and overseeing mineral extraction—would serve as a form of “automatic security.” That logic seems rather shaky given Russia’s track record of striking civilian and infrastructure targets indiscriminately.

Zelensky, meanwhile, remains firm that Ukraine will not sign the deal until a concrete security agreement is reached. He has also hinted that without such guarantees, peace with Russia is impossible.

This deal indicates a shifting dynamic in global politics. While the US remains Ukraine’s biggest backer, Trump is making it clear that American support is not unconditional. The message? If Ukraine wants continued military and economic assistance, it needs to provide something tangible in return.

Trump has floated the idea that Russia might accept European peacekeepers in Ukraine. Unsurprisingly, Moscow shut that idea down instantly. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made it clear that the Kremlin won’t even consider such an option. It looks like Putin is playing the long game, waiting for Western support for Ukraine to wane.

When Will the Deal Be Signed?

Ukraine’s Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal has confirmed that the final version of the minerals deal is ready to go. The Ukrainian government is set to authorize the signing on Wednesday, paving the way for Zelensky to meet Trump in Washington on Friday.

But Zelensky is walking into that meeting with a direct question for Trump—will the US continue supporting Ukraine or not?

The All Important Minerals 

Ukraine is sitting on a goldmine—well, not literally gold, but something just as valuable in today’s world: critical raw materials. The country holds about 5% of the world’s reserves, making it a significant player in the global minerals market.

Among the most crucial is graphite, with an estimated 19 million tonnes of proven reserves. This is a big deal because graphite is essential for making batteries in electric vehicles—a booming industry.

Then there’s titanium, lithium, and rare earth metals, all of which power everything from smartphones and wind turbines to fighter jets. Essentially, these minerals are the backbone of modern technology and defense industries.

But there’s a catch. A good chunk of these resources—worth around $350 billion—are in Russian-occupied territories. That means even if Ukraine and the US strike a deal, mining operations won’t be fully operational until the war situation stabilizes.

And then there’s another challenge—landmines. With nearly a quarter of Ukraine’s landmass contaminated with unexploded ordnance, extracting these valuable resources won’t be an easy feat.

How Has Russia Reacted?

Moscow isn’t exactly thrilled about the US-Ukraine deal, but they’re trying to play it cool—at least on the surface.

What’s Next for the Ukraine-Russia War?

As Ukraine enters the fourth year of its war against Russian aggression, the battlefield has extended beyond military confrontations to strategic alliances and geopolitical maneuvering. While the war has tested Ukraine’s resilience, it has also revealed fractures within the Western response, with some allies hesitating and often providing support that can be described as “too little, too late.”

The Nordic Belt. A United Front for Ukraine

Amidst these challenges, Ukraine has found steadfast support from its northern allies. The Nordic Belt—Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, and Sweden—stands firm as a regional bloc reinforcing Ukraine’s defense. These countries, bound by geography and historical encounters with Russian expansionism, have significantly increased military and strategic cooperation.

Norway, for instance, has announced an allocation of NOK 1.2 billion ($114 million) to bolster Ukraine’s air defense capabilities. In addition, Norway has joined the International Drone Coalition for Ukraine and pledged over 6 billion kroner ($570 million) in military aid for 2024. Germany, not far behind, has committed to supplying Ukraine with 100 IRIS-T missiles and enhancing its collaborative defense efforts.

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom remains in wait-and-watch mode. The UK has signaled a preference for Donald Trump’s re-election before engaging in direct negotiations regarding military aid and peace initiatives. However, a surprising development emerged when Trump held a direct call with Russian President Vladimir Putin—a move that was met with strong criticism from European allies.

The Nordic-Baltic bloc responded swiftly, issuing a statement reaffirming their commitment to increasing support for Ukraine, emphasizing that any security agreement must involve European stakeholders.

Trump’s Solo Diplomacy with Putin

Donald Trump’s approach to the Ukraine conflict has been nothing short of unpredictable. While he has categorically denied sending U.S. peacekeeping forces, he has left the door open for NATO-led initiatives. His direct engagement with Putin, without involving Ukraine or European leaders, raised alarms across the continent. European nations insist that any discussion of security arrangements and NATO membership for Ukraine must be decided by European states and Ukraine itself—not through unilateral U.S.-Russia talks.

French President Emmanuel Macron weighed in on the issue, recalling past failed agreements with Russia. He pointed out that in 2014, a ceasefire agreement was repeatedly violated by Moscow, with little to no collective response from the West. Macron warned against rushing into another fragile deal, stating that “the issue is of trust and credibility—how do we ensure Russia does not break its word again?”

Macron outlined a structured approach to achieving a sustainable ceasefire. According to him, the sequence of events should be:

–U.S.-Russia negotiations: Establishing a primary dialogue.

–U.S.-Ukraine negotiations: Ensuring Ukraine’s security interests are represented.

–A short-term Trump-Zelensky meeting: A step towards de-escalation.

–Ceasefire implementation across land, air, and sea.

–Verification mechanisms: Ensuring Russia respects the agreement.

Macron emphasized that discussions must also include security guarantees for Ukraine. While NATO membership remains a contentious topic, France and the UK are exploring a proposal where European troops could be stationed in Ukraine—not for direct confrontation, but as a deterrent against future Russian aggression. Such a plan would require backing from the United States, reinforcing transatlantic solidarity.

Europe’s Role and the Cost of War

The war has devastated Ukraine, with over 6 million citizens displaced as refugees and tens of thousands of lives lost. The economic toll has been staggering, with estimates suggesting that rebuilding Ukraine will require $524 billion—nearly three times its expected economic output in 2024.

Macron acknowledged Trump’s concerns over Europe not shouldering enough of the financial burden, but he argued that European leaders are ready to take on a significant share of the responsibility. He stated that around 30 European nations are prepared to be part of a joint defense structure, provided that the U.S. guarantees its continued support.

Could Russia Reinvade Ukraine Without U.S. Security Guarantees? 

Keir Starmer’s warning that Russia could reinvade Ukraine without U.S. security guarantees adds yet another perspective to an already fragile geopolitical ecosystem. As the British Prime Minister landed in Washington for critical talks with Donald Trump, all eyes are on this talk.

With Trump signaling his reluctance to provide security guarantees and instead pushing Europe to take the lead.

Would this result in a shift toward Europe’s deeper involvement in the conflict? If so, does this mean the war will continue, but this time under a European-led initiative rather than a U.S.-backed defense?

Europe has largely supported Ukraine through financial aid, weapons, and diplomatic pressure. However, the absence of direct U.S. security commitments raises serious concerns. Starmer’s proposal for a British and French-led peacekeeping force hinges on American logistical and air support—without which it would be significantly weakened.

Emmanuel Macron has already warned Trump against a “surrender” of Ukraine, while Volodymyr Zelenskyy continues to seek solid American backing. Yet Trump’s stance remains clear: Europe must take charge.

This creates a precarious situation. If Europe intensifies its involvement without clear U.S. backing, it could lead to a drawn-out conflict where European forces are left holding the frontline against Russia. Without strong deterrence, Putin might simply wait for an opportunity to strike again, seeing European efforts as weaker than a fully committed NATO approach.

For European leaders like Starmer and Macron, this presents a significant challenge. Without the traditional security umbrella of the U.S., Europe may be forced to invest more deeply in its own defense capabilities. Starmer’s recent pledge to increase the UK’s defense spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 is a sign of this strategic recalibration.

The Last Bit 

If Europe steps in to fill the void left by an absent U.S., does that mean the war will drag on indefinitely? The answer depends on how effectively European nations can deter further Russian aggression. Without a decisive security backstop from the U.S., Europe’s intervention could become a stopgap rather than a permanent solution.

Moreover, the potential for internal divisions within the EU and NATO remains high. Some European nations may be reluctant to take on the full burden of security guarantees, leading to a fragmented approach. Putin, well-versed in exploiting such divisions, could see this as an opportunity to test Europe’s resolve.

As Starmer meets Trump, the world watches to see if the UK can secure a compromise that ensures both security and stability. Trump’s unpredictable nature makes this diplomatic effort particularly challenging. Meanwhile, Europe faces a defining moment—either it steps up as a military power capable of deterring Russia, or it risks being caught in a prolonged conflict with no clear endgame.

Perhaps, the war in Ukraine is far from over, and its next phase may see Europe playing a far larger role, with or without American backing. The question is whether Europe is ready for that responsibility.