The spectacle of global diplomacy rarely produces moments of unvarnished clarity, but when President Donald Trump met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Washington on February 28, the message could not have been starker: the war in Ukraine is no longer sustainable, and a deal must be struck before defeat becomes inevitable. Despite the lofty rhetoric surrounding indefinite support for Kyiv, President Trump laid down an uncomfortable truth—Ukraine is losing momentum. The country is under pressure from Russia, with reports suggesting that as many as 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers face prosecution for refusing to continue fighting. Without a settlement, Ukraine risks collapse, undoing the resilience it has displayed thus far. While Ukraine has managed to hold Russia at bay and achieve a notable moral victory, reality has set in. Realpolitik, President Trump holds, now demands a realistic peace deal.
The situation is far from simple. The EU’s historical mishandling of Ukraine, which mirrors its missteps during the dissolution of Yugoslavia, has exacerbated the crisis. While the Russian invasion is indefensible, the window for peace must be seized before it closes and throws the world into chaos. President Trump’s approach to this dilemma is as pragmatic as it is unsentimental. He made it clear that the United States will not engage in direct military action to expel Russia, knowing that doing so risks triggering World War III.
The Strategic Importance of the Critical Minerals Deal
Initially, Zelensky miscalculated a pivotal element of American strategy: the critical minerals agreement between the U.S. and Ukraine. This deal is central to the evolving U.S. policy in Europe. President Trump sees it as an implicit security guarantee. By winning access to Ukraine’s rich mineral resources, the U.S. establishes economic and industrial interests without deploying boots on the ground in the region. The agreement effectively allows an American protection shield in Ukraine without the need for military confrontation with Russia.
The Components of President Trump’s Peace Plan
President Trump’s broader strategy is taking shape. His plan calls for a comprehensive agreement: the recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea and Donbas, Ukraine’s accession to the European Single Market, and the stationing of European—rather than American—peacekeeping forces at Ukraine’s borders with Russia.
From a tactical standpoint, this outcome is a win-win for all parties. Russia secures its Black Sea position and gains control over Ukraine’s eastern regions, which are rich in basic minerals, such as titanium and non-ferrous metals, crucial for Russia’s aerospace and defense sectors. Ukraine would gain economic integration with Europe and a security framework that avoids NATO troops. The western part of Ukraine, rich in specialty minerals like nickel, graphite, lithium, and uranium, would remain firmly under U.S. control. Specialty minerals are of significant interest to a range of industries. The deployment of European peacekeeping forces would finally grant Europe the long-sought geopolitical role it has struggled to attain.
In addition, the reconstruction of Ukraine would provide the U.S. with deal currency. With contracts worth $324 billion earmarked for U.S. companies, the deal would offer economic opportunities, creating a new market for American firms. This would provide a significant boost to the U.S. economy and also give President Trump the leverage to bring British industry (BP, Shell, Rio Tinto) into the fold, compensating the UK for its security endeavors.
From a strategic point of view, the Trump plan represents an American victory on the geopolitical stage. With NATO’s recent expansion to include Sweden and Finland, Russia is now encircled by Western powers to the north, losing access to critical Northern seas routes. Its primary naval force is confined to the Arctic, where Arkhangelsk remains frozen for much of the year. A settlement over Ukraine would force Russia to shift its focus southward, where it would inevitably find itself caught in the U.S.-China strategic rivalry. Additionally, while Russia secures a foothold in the Black Sea, it will face direct competition with Turkey for control over key waterways, weakening its longstanding geopolitical alignment with Ankara.
The London Summit and Europe’s Strategic Defeat
Meanwhile, the European summit on Ukraine, held in London on March 2, has irreversibly altered the continent’s geopolitical trajectory. Europe’s long-standing ambition to carve out an independent geopolitical role has been dealt a decisive blow. The exclusion of key countries like the Baltic States, Hungary, Slovakia, and Greece underscores the end of the “ever closer union.” Greece’s absence, in particular, reflects the desire not to upset its delicate relationship with Turkey, with Ankara’s engagement seen as a way to destabilize Russia’s strategic position in the Balkans.
British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, eager for relevance, pushed his own ceasefire proposal at the summit. However, this appeared more as a political gesture than a serious policy shift, in light of President Trump’s already articulated terms. While Sir Keir sought the spotlight in London, Lord Peter Mandelson, the British ambassador to the U.S., was in Washington doing the real diplomatic heavy lifting. In a pointed interview with ABC News, Lord Mandelson said,
President Zelensky must unequivocally back the initiative that President Trump is taking to end the war and bring a just and lasting peace. I think that Ukraine should be the first to commit to a ceasefire and defy the Russians to follow,
before adding,
and then, as part of the unfolding plan for this negotiation, the Europeans and perhaps some other countries too, have got to consider how they are going to put forces on the ground to play their part in providing enduring security and deterrence for Ukraine.
Lord Mandelson’s words reflect a broader reality: while Europe dithers, the U.S. is firmly in control of the peace process.
The Monroe Doctrine Redux: U.S. Leverage Over Russia
Hidden by the agreement on a limited ceasefire and prisoner swap, the conversation between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin on March 18, revealed the end game behind this strategic shift. According to the U.S. readout, a peace settlement in Ukraine could pave the way for economic cooperation between the U.S. and Russia. This is neither an act of goodwill nor an ideological concession but a recalibration of global influence. President Trump recognizes that, with China’s growing dominance, isolating Russia is unsustainable. Instead, offering economic incentives creates strategic leverage. The US aims to support Russia’s development in Siberia in exchange for access to its mineral resources, seeking to weaken Moscow’s growing alignment with Beijing.
The normalization of U.S.-Russia relations also entails a crackdown on Iran, with Moscow agreeing to restrict Tehran’s nuclear ambitions—a significant concession in the Middle East in exchange for U.S. mediation to end the war in Ukraine.
These developments reflect the essence of the Monroe Doctrine—limiting adversarial influence through selective engagement. Despite his defiant posture, Putin understands economic imperatives. If President Trump presents a viable alternative to China’s, Moscow may reconsider its trajectory. Critics may dismiss this as mere transactional diplomacy, but in geopolitics, transactions shape outcomes.
Bepi Pezzulli is a Solicitor of the Senior Courts of England and Wales specializing in Governance as well as a Councillor of the Great British PAC. He tweets at @bepipezzulli
American Thinker
Jesus Christ is King
Comments are closed.