Trump’s High-Stakes Gamble: Ukraine’s Future on the Line

Ukrainian officials are currently engaged in high-stakes negotiations with the United States, facing a level of brinkmanship that is extreme even by Donald Trump’s standards. His administration is demanding that Ukraine hand over a significant share of profits from its mining, ports, and other industries in exchange for continued American support. Speaking in Kyiv on February 23rd, after enduring another night of devastating Russian drone attacks, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky rejected what he called the “unfair” terms of the latest proposal. He insisted that any agreement must include military assistance. Talks are ongoing, but the stakes are perilous. One pressing concern is how much Ukraine will be forced to concede if a deal is struck—one senior official describes the negotiations as “not diplomacy, but extortion.” The other major fear is the retaliation Trump might unleash if Ukraine refuses to comply, including blocking military aid, cutting off access to the Starlink satellite network, or accelerating his peace overtures to Vladimir Putin.

The Ukrainian delegation has found Trump’s team’s negotiating tactics so bewildering that they have reportedly been watching documentaries on his deal-making style to gain insight. One certainty is the intensity of the “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) approach. Since February 12th, Ukraine has faced three iterations of a proposed agreement: a "bad" deal, a "better" one, and a "disastrous" version—each presented by different members of Trump’s inner circle, including Wall Street figures. The concept originated in September when Zelensky initially proposed granting mineral rights to the U.S. in exchange for future security guarantees and NATO membership. However, Trump has flipped the idea on its head, instead demanding control over Ukraine’s resources as retroactive payment for American aid already provided.

Under the most recent and harshest version of the deal, Ukrainian officials say they would be required to transfer 50% of future state profits from natural resources and key infrastructure, such as ports, to a new investment fund controlled by the U.S. government. The payments would continue until the fund reaches $500 billion—a sum Trump claims, without clear justification, represents America’s total spending on aid to Ukraine since the war began. Given Ukraine’s current state income levels, fulfilling this obligation could take centuries. On February 23rd, Zelensky publicly denounced the proposal, arguing that it resembled a debt-repayment scheme rather than an investment fund. He firmly rejected the notion that Ukraine owed such a debt, pointing out that the aid was provided by Joe Biden’s administration as a grant. A senior Ukrainian official warned, “If we sign this as it stands, tomorrow we’d be thrown out of office—and lynched by an angry mob.”

Trump’s team has been steadily escalating pressure on Ukraine for weeks. On February 12th, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent presented the initial “bad” proposal to Zelensky in Kyiv and gave him only one hour to sign it. Zelensky requested more time, and a second, marginally improved “better” deal was introduced at the Munich Security Conference a week later by Trump’s special Ukraine envoy, Keith Kellogg, and Vice President J.D. Vance. Like the first, this version lacked any commitment to military support, aside from vague assurances about protecting extracted resources. However, Ukrainian sources noted that this offer did not explicitly frame the deal as repayment for a supposed debt. In response, Ukraine submitted a counterproposal, but on February 20th, it was blindsided by a new, far more punitive “disastrous” draft, spearheaded by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Ukraine was told to disregard all previous negotiations and prepare to surrender resources with little in return. The ultimatum was clear: take the deal or lose the war.

Despite these setbacks, Ukrainian officials maintain that negotiations have not yet completely collapsed. However, the confusion is mounting over which faction of Trump’s administration they should be engaging with. The U.S. Treasury Department continues to assert control over the talks, even as Lutnick aggressively pushes his version of the agreement. Ukraine fears that if it commits to Lutnick’s terms, it could alienate Vance and Kellogg, whose proposal seemed more balanced. “We had real, productive talks then, moving towards an agreement,” one Ukrainian official reflected.

A key sticking point is the ambiguous nature of the investment fund’s purpose. Writing in the Financial Times on February 22nd, Bessent claimed that the fund would only target government revenue and would be used to finance Ukraine’s long-term reconstruction. He described it as an “economic partnership” designed to benefit both countries, prevent adversaries from exploiting Ukraine’s post-war rebuilding efforts, and drive economic growth. However, Ukrainian officials argue that the latest version of the deal would grant America outright ownership of both assets and investments, making it look less like an economic partnership and more like an asset grab.

The financial figures underpinning Trump’s demands are also dubious. While his administration claims that U.S. assistance to Ukraine amounts to $500 billion, the actual amount transferred in weapons and direct budgetary aid is less than a quarter of that. Ukrainian negotiators suspect the $500 billion figure may have been invented simply to align with Trump’s exaggerated public statements. Regardless, such a financial burden would be crushing for Ukraine—a country whose entire GDP is less than half that sum. Zelensky has made it clear that he cannot trade away Ukraine’s mineral wealth without receiving tangible benefits in return. “I defend Ukraine, I can’t sell our country,” he stated firmly on February 19th.

Some Ukrainian officials believe that Lutnick’s punitive draft may be a form of retaliation for Ukraine’s refusal to immediately accept earlier proposals. Trump is reportedly infuriated by Kyiv’s resistance. “Once he saw that we didn’t sign with Vance and Kellogg, he sent a very senior guy who speaks only in figures—no emotions, no empathy, nothing,” a Ukrainian source revealed. The conversations have been laced with veiled threats and condescending rhetoric. One American negotiator reportedly told Ukraine, “This is a transaction of love. We are caring for you, but you don’t want to be in trouble.”

The consequences of rejecting Trump’s terms could be severe. There are growing concerns in Kyiv that his administration might take more drastic measures to force compliance, including cutting off access to Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites—a vital component of Ukraine’s battlefield communications. Such extreme pressure tactics could leave Ukraine with no viable alternative but to accept an unpopular and potentially ruinous deal. As one senior Ukrainian official grimly concluded, “This negotiation is rude, but it’s not the worst that could happen. Everything else that happens later will be worse.”