UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS are currently engaged in negotiations with the United States, which have reached a troubling level of brinkmanship reminiscent of Donald Trump’s previous tactics. Trump and his associates are insisting that Ukraine cede profits from its mining, ports, and other industries in exchange for any form of support from the U.S. During his visit to Kyiv on February 23rd, following a night of devastating Russian drone strikes, Volodymyr Zelensky categorized the latest proposal as “unfair” and stressed that any agreement must include military assistance. The negotiations are ongoing, but one major concern is how much pressure Ukraine will face if an agreement is reached: one official described the situation as “not negotiation, but extortion.” Another pressing concern is the potential consequences Trump may impose if Ukraine declines to agree to his terms. In Kyiv, there are increasing anxieties that he could halt military support, interrupt access to Starlink satellite communications, or expedite peace negotiations with Vladimir Putin.
Ukrainian officials state that their interactions with Trump’s team have been so perplexing that they have taken to watching documentaries to understand his negotiation tactics. The only clarity seems to come from the intensity of MAGA pressure. Since February 12th, there have been three iterations of a proposed deal: a “bad” option, a “better” one, and a “disastrous” variant, each promoted by various representatives from Team Trump, including some with Wall Street backgrounds. The idea was first introduced by the Ukrainians in September when Zelensky suggested granting mineral rights in return for future security assistance and an invitation to NATO. However, Trump has since reversed the proposal, insisting on claiming Ukraine’s resources and infrastructure as compensation for pre-existing American aid.
According to Ukrainian officials, the latest “disastrous” proposal would require Ukraine to hand over 50% of future state profits derived from natural resources and infrastructure, such as ports, to a new investment fund managed by the U.S. government. This contribution would persist until the fund reaches $500 billion, a figure that aligns with Trump’s exaggerated claims regarding the financial assistance the U.S. has provided to Ukraine since the onset of the war. At current projections of state revenue, it would take centuries to meet that threshold. On February 23rd, Zelensky noted that under the current terms, the fund appeared more as a mechanism for repaying debt rather than fostering investment—a debt he refused to acknowledge, stating that American support should be considered a grant from Joe Biden. A Ukrainian official remarked, “If we sign this as it stands, tomorrow we’d be thrown out of office, and lynched by an angry mob.”
The pressure from Trump’s team has been escalating for weeks. On February 12th, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent presented Zelensky with the first “bad” proposal in Kyiv and limited him to an hour for signing it. When Zelensky requested more time, Keith Kellogg, Trump’s representative for Ukraine, and J.D. Vance, his vice president, introduced the “better” deal a week later at the Munich Security Conference. Like its predecessor, this offer lacked a commitment to aid Ukraine’s defense, aside from a clause concerning the protection of resources extracted. However, according to a Ukrainian source, “there was not the same explicit attempt to portray this as a payment for the imaginary debt.” Subsequently, Ukraine submitted a counter-proposal, only to be startled by yet another “disastrous” draft on February 20th. The negotiations had shifted control to Howard Lutnick, the recent commerce secretary, who instructed Ukraine to disregard previous discussions and prepare for the prospect of handing over resources with minimal returns. The ultimatum was clear: accept this or bear the consequences of losing the war.
While Ukrainian officials maintain that discussions have not reached an impasse, it is often unclear which of the three American negotiating factions they should engage with. Even as Lutnick laid out his plan, the U.S. Treasury was still asserting its role in the negotiations, concern Ukrainian officials. They fear that agreeing to Lutnick’s conditions could alienate Vance and would rather revert to the more equitable Kellogg-Vance draft. “We had real, productive talks then, moving towards an agreement,” they stated.
Additionally, there is considerable ambiguity surrounding the intended purpose of the proposed fund. On February 22nd, Bessent asserted in the Financial Times that it would solely claim government revenue to finance long-term reconstruction, describing it as an “economic partnership” that would benefit both countries, prevent adversaries from profiting from a post-war building boom, and foster growth. However, Ukrainian officials counter that while the proposed arrangement would retain funds within the country, it would also require America to lay claim to both assets and investments, resembling more a resource grab than a genuine investment agreement.
Moreover, the financial figures presented in the most recent discussions do not add up. The U.S. claims to have provided $500 billion in military and economic assistance thus far. In reality, however, the actual amount transferred in the form of weapons and direct budget support accounts for less than a quarter of that figure. The Trump administration has yet to clarify the source of the $500 billion figure, leading to speculation that it was inflated to appease Trump. Regardless, such a burden would be colossal for a small, impoverished nation, exceeding Ukraine’s entire GDP by more than double. Zebensky has insisted on receiving something tangible in exchange for relinquishing mineral wealth, declaring on February 19th, “I defend Ukraine, I can’t sell our country.”
There is a theory that Lutnick’s latest draft terms were made more onerous as retribution for not acquiescing sooner. The pushback from Ukraine has seemingly frustrated the U.S. president. “Once he saw that we didn’t sign with Vance and Kellogg, he sent a very senior guy who speaks only with figures and no emotions, no empathy, nothing,” said a Ukrainian source. Implicit threats were present, conveyed in a condescending tone. “The Americans said: This is a transaction of love. We are caring for you, but you don’t want to be in trouble.”
Should Zelensky reject Trump’s terms on February 23rd, there is concern that Trump could respond with significant anger. Fears have emerged that the administration could resort to more aggressive leverages, such as cutting off access to Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites, which are vital for Ukraine’s frontline communications. Such drastic measures might leave Ukraine with little alternative but to accept an unfavorable agreement. One senior Ukrainian official remarked that the negotiation is “rude,” but noted, “it’s not the worst that could happen. Everything else that happens later will be worse.” ■
