Such public trimming has never happened in the history of diplomacy. The United States President and Ukraine President Zelanski have set the internet on fire, with condemnation of both sides, and speculation about the result. The Zelanceci was not unnaturally on the shore, given that he had to explain a ‘deal’ to his people. Trump was aggressive, as his vice -president, who felt, again, not unnaturally, that Zelansky had no gratitude to a President, in fact, is the only world leader who is trying to end a terrible war. True, he also wants a peback in minerals, but the US and its European partners have always fought war for resources. This is just that they do not call it further. Only, Trump did it.
That joint presser
At the meeting, Zelansky made a sartorial statement rather than a requirement in his trademark camouflage, as he is far from fighting on the front. A question of the audience was unbearable to say at least why he did not wear a suit at the White House meeting, but it demonstrates exaggeration with a comedian, which brought the country of his once-future country to destruction and dangerously brought the world dangerously to the World War III. This is what Trump said, and that is right.
As the state’s secretary Marco Rubio clearly stated, Ukrainian insisted on visiting Washington, not on the table yet. Away from being left out, at least 10 days of conversation and repeated conversations took place. However, Zelancesi chose the US President and his team to take it in a diet, which was unnecessary because it was a counter-producer. Clearly, and uncertainly, he was playing in the gallery. War leaders rarely survive, and it also includes Winston Churchill. For Zelanski, it can be worse than being out of office only, a growing distance appearance and corruption allegations can be given back home.
Trump is also right on Russia
The sympathy factor for Ukraine may lose currency. True, the central argument is that Russia invaded Ukraine. But there is a lot of documentation to strengthen what President Trump said and repeated in the presser, that it was a war that should never be fought, and that Russia never agreed to expand NATO. There is a lot of evidence that Russia was offered a ‘Iron-Clade Guarantee’ that NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) would proceed to the ‘East’, and it was clearly clarified in a memorandum between 1990 secretary James Baker and his Russian counterpart Shawardnadz. The assurance continued in a group of memo and telephone calls in later years, which was noted by former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director Robert Gates, strengthened the confidence of the Soviet leaders that NATO meant what he said. The entire German reunion was based on the unwritten promise that while joining NATO, membership was designed to stabilize the continent, only.
Eventually, NATO added 14 members in the next decade. Rapid forward to 1997, when there was also a NATO-Russian Founding Act to give a ‘strong partnership’ between the two sides. Boris Yeltsin, in fact, agreed to include Czechia, Poland and Hungary in the block, on the condition that no nuclear weapons were deployed there. But it did not clearly say anything about more expansion. Was it a betrayal? Yes, because during this period, Russia was also motivated to believe that it could one day join NATO, a dream that was held since 1954 when it made a specific proposal.
Promises NATO and closes back
During the 1990s, NATO-Ukraine relations became stronger, with the ‘Crowning Glory’ in 2008, when it was declared that it welcomed Ukraine (and Georgia’s) “Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership”. Russia was vivid, but to no avail. Then the talks about the alleged role of America in obtaining a ‘friendly’ government in Ukraine were leaked. The Russian pro -government was removed from power after the Crimea invasion in 2014. NATO support quick, including military training for ‘infection’ for implementation and full difference of a comprehensive support package (CAP).
In 2017, Ukraine’s Constitution was converted into NATO membership, which was carried forward in 2019 after the election of Zelancesi. By 2022, he was asking for “quick membership”, arguing that a member’s position would be the amount for the preventive. At the then and later NATO summit, he received a permanent ovation and appreciation, but very little. The final betrayal, therefore, belonged to Ukraine. In vain, Zelansky asked for the least time for future membership. In July 2024, the NATO summit simply said, “Ukraine’s future is in NATO”, but did not commit any commitment. But then, Ukraine is used to betray. Finally, in 1994, all major parties, including Russia, signed Budapest honoring Ukraine’s sovereignty as it left the third largest reserves of nuclear weapons. Interestingly, it also committed him to “avoid” any kind of economic force. Then what is the cost of the mineral agreement?
Those unmistakable minerals
Now, only for the proposed agreement. Claims of huge resources have originated from the Ukrainian Geological Survey that point to the resources of $ 15 trillion. In particular, its map is most of its part in the Russia-Kabje region, which means that Kiev expects someone to bring it back. But there is a pushback against all this drama from the mining industry, which argues that ‘stores’ are far from being proved, and that the whole saga is based on the map of the old Soviet-era that is using in the legend.
Meanwhile, the current drafts of the agreement make calls to a bilateral reconstruction fund that envisages “the future migration of the natural resource property owned by all relevant Ukrainian governments”; Another interesting section states that the fund will “try to avoid conflict with the obligations of Ukraine under its assessment to the European Union”. Apparently, the European Union signed its deal with Ukraine in 2021 just before the war. The pitch was recently rebuilt, the European Union Commissioner reiterated that 21 of the 30 important minerals need Europe in Ukraine. That’s interesting; It seems that in Europe there is an encouragement to see that Russia returns to those areas. Only, this is not going to happen on the table of a conversation.
Do not trust Europe
As Europe fumes on Trump’s dressing, the facts are simple. While both the UK and France have offered soldiers in the form of “second-row” peace soldiers in collaboration with a multinational force, Europe is not going to fight for Ukraine. Second, although Europeans have actually provided more for a fight than the US – to ensure that $ 138.7 billion by the entire Europe as compared to $ 119.7 billion US funds – it states that its biggest ratio is in debt, which is unlike the US, which provides grants. In short, the richest countries on Earth are not ready to pay for war or provide manpower for it. The same trump is calling out.
In short, Trump can use a hammer to send a point to the house, but ending the war is beneficial for Ukraine and its people. The first step is for Zelanski to understand that he has no card to play, until American takes steps. Europe will not do much except offering membership of the European Union. Any safety guarantee will arise from a peace force that will brake on the alleged Russian ambitions. Will it get back area to decide future negotiators. But the bottom line is: This is the zelansky that has to decide to end the war. His people have been suffering a lot. Washington’s all meeting should have been about. The rest is ornamentation. And they are shiny minerals, so far, there are not even – until no one goes there and certainly does not start digging.
(Tara Kartha is a former director of the National Security Council Secretariat)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
