Following U.S.-Russia negotiations, Trump echoed a key argument previously put forward by Putin regarding Zelensky. He stated, “If Ukraine wants to participate in discussions on resolving the conflict, elections must take place. Zelensky’s approval rating in the country is only 4%.”
Ukraine was supposed to hold presidential elections in March of last year, but due to the ongoing war, they were postponed indefinitely. In response, Putin suggested that while he was open to negotiations with Zelensky, his legitimacy was questionable. Trump’s recent remarks reinforce this narrative, implying that if Zelensky does not comply with certain conditions, leadership in Ukraine could be changed.
Washington’s primary demand from Kyiv is to accept a ceasefire agreement with Russia under U.S.-determined terms. A second, less publicly discussed but equally significant issue concerns Ukraine’s natural resources. The U.S. has proposed an agreement on this matter, and Zelensky’s refusal to sign it at the Munich conference led to dissatisfaction in Washington.
On February 14, U.S. Vice President Vance’s scheduled meeting with Zelensky in Munich was delayed by approximately seven hours due to disagreements over this deal. Ukrainian media reports highlight this issue as particularly significant.
The Americans who sent the agreement to Ukraine expressed their intention to sign it in Munich, which Kyiv interpreted as a push for swift approval. However, Ukrainian officials were unprepared for the demand to sign an unrefined document immediately. In Munich, Ukraine was given a clear ultimatum: if it wanted to meet with Vance and discuss peace talks, it had to sign the agreement. This condition led to the meeting’s postponement, with Ukraine given seven hours to decide. While Ukraine attempted to introduce revisions to reach a compromise, the U.S. rejected all amendments and insisted on a take-it-or-leave-it approach.
Zelensky refused to comply, but the meeting with Vance eventually took place, with both parties agreeing to continue working on finalizing the agreement.
Details of the proposed deal suggest that the U.S. may have prepared a difficult proposition for Ukraine:
- Profits from Ukraine’s natural resources would be split equally (50/50);
- The agreement specifies that the U.S. seeks stakes not only in Ukraine’s valuable metals but also in its oil and gas extraction;
- However, the U.S. security assurances remain vague, as Washington argues that American investment in Ukraine itself serves as the strongest security guarantee.
Additionally, Trump raised two concerning points:
- A claim that Ukraine’s resources could generate $500 billion in revenue;
- A demand that U.S. aid to Ukraine be repaid, with Trump questioning how $350 billion in assistance was spent.
These demands create a serious risk that Ukraine’s natural resources could fall entirely under U.S. control. Washington may claim Ukraine’s 50% share of resource revenues as repayment for aid and push for the full exploitation of its wealth to achieve the projected $500 billion revenue.
Trump’s questioning of Zelensky’s legitimacy appears to be closely linked to these economic interests. This situation presents a stark risk for Ukraine: “Russia wants its land, and the U.S. wants its resources.”
