Donald Trump recently declared that Ukraine can forget about joining NATO. In a press briefing held before his meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump explained that Ukraine faces many internal challenges and that the evolving international situation leaves no room for immediate NATO membership. He said that Ukraine must concentrate on building its own defense and establishing direct security arrangements rather than relying on a multilateral alliance, which he now considers unrealistic.
Trump reiterated that the promise of NATO membership was one of the primary reasons for the conflict. He said that Ukraine had been misled into pursuing an alliance that has now cost the country dearly. His position represents a marked change from earlier U.S. administrations, which strongly supported Ukraine’s aspiration to join NATO as a deterrent against Russian expansion. Trump argued that this shift in policy would force Ukraine to address its own defense shortcomings and focus on economic and military self-sufficiency.
At the same time, a minerals deal is being discussed between the United States and Ukraine. Under the proposed agreement, Ukraine will contribute 50% of future revenue from the monetization of its natural resource assets into a joint fund. This fund, managed jointly by Washington and Kyiv, is intended to assist with Ukraine’s reconstruction.
The deal would give the United States access to Ukraine’s rare earth minerals, lithium, uranium, titanium, and other essential resources for advanced technology and defense. Trump described this arrangement as a way for American taxpayers to get their money back for the billions spent in support of Ukraine during the war.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has expressed cautious optimism about the minerals deal. He noted that the draft agreement does not include any direct U.S. security guarantees and stressed that Ukraine would only consider the deal if it came with measures that protect Ukraine’s sovereignty. Zelenskyy has warned that Ukraine would be at risk of being exploited without clear security commitments, a sentiment reflecting longstanding Ukrainian concerns about past arrangements. He said that Ukraine would not agree to any terms that might effectively sell the country’s future in exchange for economic aid.
European allies have reacted with concern over Trump’s new policy. Leaders in Poland and the Baltic states, who have long viewed Ukraine’s potential NATO membership as a critical shield against Russian aggression, fear that Trump’s remarks might weaken the transatlantic security framework. European officials have warned that a shift away from collective defense arrangements could embolden Moscow.
They point out that previous U.S. administrations strongly backed Ukraine’s NATO membership as part of a broader effort to counterbalance Russian influence in Eastern Europe. The move by Trump to reject NATO membership as a goal for Ukraine has raised serious questions about the future of the alliance and the security of the entire region.
The minerals deal and Trump’s comments on NATO are part of a broader realignment in U.S. policy under his second presidency. Trump has clarified that he does not intend to offer extensive U.S. security guarantees to Ukraine. Instead, he expects European nations to assume a greater share of defense responsibilities.
This approach aligns with his America First agenda and his criticism of what he sees as European dependency on U.S. military power. According to Trump, American workers involved in extracting Ukrainian minerals will serve as a form of automatic security. He argued that this economic engagement will deter adversaries because it embeds U.S. interests directly in Ukraine’s economic future, even though it does not provide explicit military protection.
The proposed minerals deal also carries significant economic implications. The draft agreement calls for establishing a Reconstruction Investment Fund to channel revenues from Ukraine’s mineral assets back into the country. This fund is a long-term investment in Ukraine’s economic stability and post-war recovery. Experts note that while Ukraine is rich in valuable minerals, many of these deposits are in areas that remain contested or under Russian control.
Furthermore, the extraction and processing of these resources will require substantial investments in infrastructure and technology. The success of the deal will depend on both nations’ ability to commit to these investments over the long term and on the assurance of a peaceful and stable environment in Ukraine after the war ends.
In his discussions with Zelenskyy, Trump stressed that his goal was to achieve a swift end to the conflict with Russia. He mentioned that any final peace agreement would likely involve concessions from Ukraine, including a reorientation away from NATO membership. This stance has generated a great deal of controversy, as many view it as a threat to Ukraine’s long-term security and its aspirations to integrate with Western institutions.
Trump’s approach, however, is framed as a necessary adjustment to a complex and protracted conflict that has already caused significant human and economic losses. His comments have sparked vigorous debate among policymakers, with some arguing that a rebalancing of security responsibilities may ultimately lead to a more stable region, while others warn that it could leave Ukraine exposed to future aggression.
The coming weeks will be crucial as Zelenskyy prepares to travel to Washington to finalize the minerals deal and as U.S. officials work to negotiate an end to the war.