Trump Has His Eyes on a Bigger Prize Than the U.S.-Ukraine Mineral Deal

U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy finally reached a deal, or at least the 'framework' of a deal, on developing Ukraine's critical mineral reserves. While the details need to be finalized by later agreements, Zelenskyy and Trump agreed to an arrangement whereby the U.S. and Ukraine would jointly manage a fund financed by revenues from Ukraine's minerals as well as its hydrocarbons, with the proceeds expected to be reinvested in Ukraine.
Trump was clearly interested in securing this deal, largely as a way for the U.S. to, in his words, 'recoup' the costs of the military aid it has supplied to Ukraine since Russia's all-out invasion of the country three years ago this week. But it was Zelenskyy who initially floated a mineral deal as part of the 'Victory Plan' proposal he put forward in October. Overall, the agreement appears to be, in the words of Kyiv School of Economics President Tymofiy Mylovanov, 'A victory for Zelensky, but also a victory for Trump.'
Perhaps most notable about the agreement is that it came after Trump seemed to pivot U.S. support from Ukraine to Russia on questions about the war. On Monday, the U.S. voted against a United Nations General Assembly resolution condemning the Russian invasion and calling for Moscow to return the Ukrainian territory it currently occupies. That followed two weeks in which the Trump administration had made clear that it was looking to revise, retrench or even, some fear, revoke U.S. security guarantees to Europe. And all of that was on top of a slew of public insults and criticisms leveled by Trump toward Zelenskyy, who responded in kind.
The diplomatic whiplash is a lot to process, and observers are right to be disoriented. While confusing, the events of recent weeks reveal much about the Trump administration's general approach to foreign policy, its support for Ukraine specifically and its stance on the war in Ukraine as a whole.
To get more in-depth news and expert analysis on global affairs from WPR, sign up for our free Daily Review newsletter.
With respect to Trumps's general approach to foreign policy, it is important to keep in mind that public pronouncements by leaders, especially leaders like Trump, are made in what international relations scholar Austin Carson—drawing on the language of sociologist Erving Goffman—calls the 'frontstage.' The statements made in this realm are not necessarily intended for the counterparts of direct negotiations, but rather are a way to communicate with other audiences. In this case, these audiences might be other countries, such as the European nations that are also supporting Ukraine, or the other key party in the conflict, Russia. But there is often also a domestic audience being addressed, and these statements can be a way to 'look tough' to one's base, something that is particularly important to Trump. In short, public declarations in the frontstage are often simply posturing, and that may very well be the case here, too.
This is in contrast to the real work happening 'backstage'—in this case, the negotiations over the deal, about which we the general public only receive limited information. In general, with negotiations, we see photos of talks. We hear summaries of discussions held by the parties. But we don't actually see what is happening behind the scenes. Sometimes what happens in the backstage can spill over to the frontstage. That could explain Trump's above-mentioned tirade against Zelenskyy. The Ukrainian president apparently turned down an initial draft mineral rights agreement presented by Trump administration officials because it did not include explicit security guarantees by the United States. While the ideal for Zelenskyy when it comes such security guarantees is NATO membership, the U.S. position—as expressed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a recent interview—is that the economic linkage created by the minerals deal is sufficient to ensure Washington's commitment to securing Ukraine. Regardless, Zelenskyy's initial refusal to sign the deal drew Trump's ire.
This relates to the Trump administration's approach to supporting Ukraine. Trump has a long and complicated history with Ukraine, going back to his first term as president. In 2019, Ukraine's military was fighting Russian-backed separatist forces in the Donbas region in a low-intensity conflict that Moscow fomented on the heels of its 2014 annexation of Crimea. At the time, Trump attempted to use the continued flow of U.S. military assistance as leverage to get Zelenskyy to authorize an investigation into Joe Biden's activities in Ukraine when Biden was still vice president. Trump hoped to use the investigation to smear Biden, who was then widely expected to be the Democratic candidate—that is, Trump's opponent—in the 2020 presidential election.
While the aid was never cut off, the attempt to use congressionally authorized funds for personal political gain was the basis for Trump's first impeachment, and that has evidently colored his views on Zelenskyy and Ukraine ever since. Following Russia's all-out invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Trump—by then no longer president—initially questioned the utility of supporting Ukraine militarily. He eventually shifted his stance to proposing that the U.S. provide aid but be 'paid back,' perhaps by converting the aid to loans.
As for the war in Ukraine, in addition to being obsessed with the idea of being 'repaid,' Trump is fixated on being seen as being the one to broker an end to the conflict. He made it a central campaign issue in last year's election. Indeed, one of his more effective campaign lines was to point out that Russia did nothing new, in terms of aggression toward its Ukraine and its other neighbors, when Trump was president. Since his return to the White House, he has repeated his claim that Russia would never have launched its all-out invasion had he, and not Biden, been president in 2022. While that counterfactual is impossible to prove or disprove, Trump went further during last year's presidential campaign, boldly asserting that he would get Ukraine and Russia on the phone and have the conflict over 'in 24 hours' were he to win the election.
That clearly didn't happen, and as president-elect, Trump acknowledged that reaching a 'fair deal' was 'complicated.' Nevertheless, he wants a deal badly. This is likely why he and others in his administration are refraining from criticizing Russia and have even begun to instead criticize Ukraine. While some find that unconscionable, it is likely an attempt by Trump to get Russia to see the U.S. as an 'honest broker,' even as Washington continues to provide direct financial and military support to Ukraine. Anything that seems to hold up a broader deal to end the conflict, including Zelenskyy standing firm against what he sees as a one-sided offer on Ukraine's mineral wealth, frustrates Trump. And when he's frustrated, he lashes out.
Of course, all the back and forth with Ukraine means nothing if Russia isn't also invested in the negotiations. The need for Trump to position himself as impartial, even while the U.S. actively supports Ukraine, likely explains why the U.S. voted against the U.N. resolution. But even being seen as an honest broker isn't enough to reach a deal if one side doesn't actually want one. And as I wrote last week, 'it is increasingly likely Trump will find that Russia, and specifically Putin, is not really interested in a deal regardless of what is offered and who is at the table.'
In the above-mentioned interview, Rubio himself acknowledged that it is not yet clear if the Russians are truly interested in ending the war. Putin has a particular fixation with Ukraine and sees domination of the country as central to his mission of restoring Russia's grandeur as a great power. Yes, he was concerned about NATO expansion, but not because he saw NATO as a threat. Instead, he saw NATO membership for Ukraine as impeding his neo-imperial designs. Given Putin's mindset, a deal to end the war is not only unlikely, but probably impossible.
Nevertheless, like many other observers before and since, I argued just ahead of the one-year anniversary of the Russian invasion that the war will likely end in a settlement rather than in a clear victory by one side over the other. That scenario has only grown more likely as we now enter a fourth year of fighting, with the battlelines largely static for the past two and a half years. While the U.S.-Ukraine deal is a positive step forward, it remains to be seen whether it is a step along the path that will lead to that ultimate deal to end the war.
Paul Poast is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Chicago and a nonresident fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
The post Trump Has His Eyes on a Bigger Prize Than the U.S.-Ukraine Mineral Deal appeared first on World Politics Review.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

11 minutes ago

• Yahoo

EUWAX's (FRA:EUX) Dividend Will Be €3.26

EUWAX Aktiengesellschaft (FRA:EUX) will pay a dividend of €3.26 on the 1st of August. Based on this payment, the dividend yield on the company's stock will be 9.0%, which is an attractive boost to shareholder returns. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. While it is great to have a strong dividend yield, we should also consider whether the payment is sustainable. Before making this announcement, the company's dividend was much higher than its earnings. It will be difficult to sustain this level of payout so we wouldn't be confident about this continuing. Earnings per share could rise by 6.8% over the next year if things go the same way as they have for the last few years. If the dividend continues on its recent course, the payout ratio in 12 months could be 271%, which is a bit high and could start applying pressure to the balance sheet. See our latest analysis for EUWAX While the company has been paying a dividend for a long time, it has cut the dividend at least once in the last 10 years. There hasn't been much of a change in the dividend over the last 10 years. It's encouraging to see some dividend growth, but the dividend has been cut at least once, and the size of the cut would eliminate most of the growth anyway, which makes this less attractive as an income investment. With a relatively unstable dividend, it's even more important to evaluate if earnings per share is growing, which could point to a growing dividend in the future. We are encouraged to see that EUWAX has grown earnings per share at 6.8% per year over the past five years. However, the payout ratio is very high, not leaving much room for growth of the dividend in the future. Overall, we don't think this company makes a great dividend stock, even though the dividend wasn't cut this year. The payments are bit high to be considered sustainable, and the track record isn't the best. We would be a touch cautious of relying on this stock primarily for the dividend income. Investors generally tend to favour companies with a consistent, stable dividend policy as opposed to those operating an irregular one. At the same time, there are other factors our readers should be conscious of before pouring capital into a stock. For instance, we've picked out 2 warning signs for EUWAX that investors should take into consideration. Is EUWAX not quite the opportunity you were looking for? Why not check out our selection of top dividend stocks. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data

Yahoo

11 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Investors Met With Slowing Returns on Capital At Padini Holdings Berhad (KLSE:PADINI)

There are a few key trends to look for if we want to identify the next multi-bagger. Ideally, a business will show two trends; firstly a growing return on capital employed (ROCE) and secondly, an increasing amount of capital employed. This shows us that it's a compounding machine, able to continually reinvest its earnings back into the business and generate higher returns. That's why when we briefly looked at Padini Holdings Berhad's (KLSE:PADINI) ROCE trend, we were pretty happy with what we saw. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. For those that aren't sure what ROCE is, it measures the amount of pre-tax profits a company can generate from the capital employed in its business. To calculate this metric for Padini Holdings Berhad, this is the formula: Return on Capital Employed = Earnings Before Interest and Tax (EBIT) ÷ (Total Assets - Current Liabilities) 0.14 = RM242m ÷ (RM2.1b - RM369m) (Based on the trailing twelve months to March 2025). Thus, Padini Holdings Berhad has an ROCE of 14%. That's a pretty standard return and it's in line with the industry average of 14%. View our latest analysis for Padini Holdings Berhad Above you can see how the current ROCE for Padini Holdings Berhad compares to its prior returns on capital, but there's only so much you can tell from the past. If you'd like to see what analysts are forecasting going forward, you should check out our free analyst report for Padini Holdings Berhad . The trend of ROCE doesn't stand out much, but returns on a whole are decent. The company has consistently earned 14% for the last five years, and the capital employed within the business has risen 42% in that time. Since 14% is a moderate ROCE though, it's good to see a business can continue to reinvest at these decent rates of return. Stable returns in this ballpark can be unexciting, but if they can be maintained over the long run, they often provide nice rewards to shareholders. In the end, Padini Holdings Berhad has proven its ability to adequately reinvest capital at good rates of return. In light of this, the stock has only gained 40% over the last five years for shareholders who have owned the stock in this period. That's why it could be worth your time looking into this stock further to discover if it has more traits of a multi-bagger. On a separate note, we've found 1 warning sign for Padini Holdings Berhad you'll probably want to know about. For those who like to invest in solid companies, check out this free list of companies with solid balance sheets and high returns on equity. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Boston Globe

15 minutes ago

• Boston Globe

Shifting views and misdirection: How Trump decided to strike Iran

It was almost entirely a deception. Trump had all but made up his mind to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, and the military preparations were well underway for the complex attack. Less than 30 hours after Leavitt relayed his statement, he would give the order for an assault that put the United States in the middle of the latest conflict to break out in one of the world's most volatile regions. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump's 'two weeks' statement was just one aspect of a broader effort at political and military misdirection that took place over eight chaotic days, from the first Israeli strikes against Iran to the moment when a fleet of B-2 stealth bombers took off from Missouri for the first U.S. military strikes inside Iran since that country's theocratic revolution in 1979. Advertisement Interviews with administration officials, Trump allies and advisers, Pentagon officials and others familiar with the events show how, during this period, different factions of Trump's allies jockeyed to win over a president who was listing in all directions over whether to choose war, diplomacy or some combination. Advertisement Outsiders tried to divine which faction was ascendant based on whom Trump met with at any given time. Trump seemed almost gleeful in telling reporters that he could make a decision 'one second before it's due, because things change, especially with war.' All the while, Trump was making blustery statements indicating he was about to take the country into the conflict. 'Everyone should evacuate Tehran!' he wrote last Monday on Truth Social, the social media platform he owns. The following day, he posted that he had not left a meeting of the Group of 7 in Canada to broker a Middle East ceasefire but for something 'much bigger.' So, he told the world, 'Stay tuned!' These public pronouncements generated angst at the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command, where military planners began to worry that Trump was giving Iran too much warning about an impending strike. They built their own deception into the attack plan: a second group of B-2 bombers that would leave Missouri and head west over the Pacific Ocean in a way that flight trackers would be able to monitor Saturday. That left a misimpression, for many observers and presumably Iran, about the timing and path of the attack, which would come from another direction entirely. The strike plan was largely in place when Trump issued his Thursday statement about how he might take up to two weeks to decide to go to war with Iran. Refueling tankers and fighter jets had been moved into position, and the military was working on providing additional protection for U.S. forces stationed in the region. Advertisement While the 'two weeks' statement bought the president more time for last-minute diplomacy, military officials said that ruse and the head fake with the B-2s also had the effect of cleaning up a mess -- the telegraphing of the attack -- that was partly of the president's making. Asked to comment on the details of this article, Leavitt said the president and his team 'successfully accomplished one of the most complex and historic military operations of all time' regarding Iran's nuclear sites. She added that 'many presidents have talked about this, but only President Trump had the guts to do it.' A shifting tune Trump had spent the early months of his administration warning Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against a strike on Iran. But by the morning of Friday, June 13, hours after the first Israeli attacks, Trump had changed his tune. He marveled to advisers about what he said was a brilliant Israeli military operation, which involved a series of precision strikes that killed key figures in Iran's military leadership and blasted away strategic weapons sites. Trump took calls on his cellphone from reporters and began hailing the operation as 'excellent' and 'very successful' and hinting that he had much more to do with it than people realized. Later that day, Trump asked an ally how the Israeli strikes were 'playing.' He said that 'everyone' was telling him he needed to get more involved, including potentially dropping 30,000-pound GBU-57 bombs on Fordo, the Iranian uranium-enrichment facility buried underneath a mountain south of Tehran. The next day, the president told another adviser he was leaning toward using those 'bunker buster' bombs on Fordo, while taking pride in both the bomb's destructive power and the fact that the United States is the only country that has the bomb in its arsenal. The adviser left the conversation convinced that Trump had already decided to bomb Iran's nuclear sites. Advertisement At the same time, the president's team was closely monitoring how their most prominent supporters were reacting on social media and on television to the prospect of the United States joining the war in a more visible way. They paid close attention to the statements of Tucker Carlson, the influential podcaster and former Fox News host, who was vehemently opposed to the United States joining Israel in taking on Iran. Trump became infuriated by some of Carlson's commentary and started complaining about him publicly and privately. Political advisers to Trump had been swapping notes on various public and private polls examining the popularity of military action against Iran, noting that American support for an operation depended in part on how pollsters asked the question. While polls showed that an overwhelming majority of Americans did not want the United States to go to war with Iran, most Americans also did not want Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. The president was closely monitoring Fox News, which was airing wall-to-wall praise of Israel's military operation and featuring guests urging Trump to get more involved. Several Trump advisers lamented the fact that Carlson was no longer on Fox, which meant that Trump was not hearing much of the other side of the debate. Deliberations among administration officials about a possible American strike on Iran were in full swing by Sunday night, June 15, when Trump left for Canada for the G7 meeting. Trump seemed to his advisers to be inching closer to approving a strike, even as he told them that Israel would be foolish to try to assassinate Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader. Advertisement Moreover, he said, if the United States were to strike Iran, the goal should be to decimate its nuclear facilities, not to bring down its government. The 'biggest threat to Opsec' By then, a small group of top military officials at the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Florida, had already begun refining attack plans on the Fordo facility and other Iranian nuclear sites that military planners had drawn up years ago. The planning was led by Gen. Michael Erik Kurilla, the Centcom commander, and Gen. Dan Caine, the chair of the Joint Chiefs. B-2 stealth bombers, based at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, are the only warplanes capable of delivering the GBU-57 bombs without detection by Iranian radar. B-2 bomber pilots have done extensive rehearsals for extended-range missions like the one before them -- crossing the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea, refueling multiple times before syncing up with fighter jets for the final flight leg into Iran. But even as the military planning was being conducted in secrecy, each of Trump's social media posts seemed to be telling the world what was coming. The president, said one military official, was the 'biggest threat to opsec,' or operational security, that the planning faced. To build confusion into the attack plan, military officials decided to have two groups of B-2 bombers leave Missouri around the same time. One group would fly westbound, toward Guam, with transponders on that could be tracked by commercial satellite companies. Another group of seven bombers, carrying a full payload of bombs and with their transponders off, flew east toward Iran, undetected. Advertisement During a news conference Sunday, hours after the U.S. strike, Caine called the Guam feint a 'decoy.' Shaping the conversation By Tuesday, June 17, Trump had largely made up his mind to strike Iran. But he took his coercive diplomacy to a new level, issuing menacing threats over social media. 'We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran,' he posted on Truth Social, adding, 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there -- We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' He demanded, in all-caps, 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!' By this point, several people in the anti-interventionist camp of Trump's advisers realized they most likely could not prevent the president from hitting the Iranian nuclear facilities. So, they turned their focus on trying to ensure the American war did not spiral into an expansive 'regime change' war. That day, June 17, Vice President JD Vance posted a long series of posts on social media that many within the anti-interventionist camp interpreted as him seeding the ground for a potential U.S. military operation and preemptively defending the president's likely decision. 'He may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment. That decision ultimately belongs to the president,' Vance wrote in the widely shared post. 'And of course, people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy. But I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue.' Prominent activists began working to shape the conversation for what was likely to come after the bombing: a debate about whether or not to engage in a war intended to bring about new leadership in Iran. 'Regime change has quickly become the newly stated goal of this operation,' wrote influential activist Charlie Kirk, in a social media post two days before the U.S. strikes. 'America should learn its lesson and not involve itself in a regime change war.' Even as Trump was posting his own hawkish statements, he was becoming annoyed as he watched pundits on television telegraph his likely strike against Fordo. He was infuriated when The Wall Street Journal reported that he had already given a green light to putting the pieces of the operation in place but had not given the final order. On Thursday, Trump was joined for lunch at the White House by Bannon, one of the most prominent critics of U.S. involvement in Israel's war with Iran. Some wishful thinkers in the anti-interventionist camp interpreted the meeting as a sign that Trump was getting cold feet. Leavitt reinforced that sentiment when she delivered Trump's statement, not long after Bannon arrived at the White House, indicating that he had given himself up to two weeks to make a decision, a time frame he often invoked for decisions on complex issues when he had no clear plan. But Trump had already dictated Leavitt's statement before he met with Bannon. It was a calculated misdirection intended to buy some breathing room for the president while suggesting that no attack was imminent. Up through that point, Trump had been willing to continue to listen to those skeptical about the Iran strike, and to hear arguments about its possibly dire consequences -- including for oil prices, civil war in Iran and a possible refugee crisis, in addition to the prospect of retaliatory attacks that could bring the United States into a sustained conflict. On Friday, Trump left the White House in the afternoon for a fundraising event at his club in Bedminster, New Jersey, his main summer retreat, further feeding the impression that no attack was imminent. But within hours, around 5 p.m. Friday, Trump ordered the military to begin its Iran mission. Given the 18 hours it would take the B-2s to fly from Missouri to Iran, he knew he still had many more hours to change his mind, as he did at the last minute in 2019, when he ordered airstrikes against Iranian targets and then aborted them. But few in his administration believed he would pull back this time. A one-off, or not A complex and highly synchronized military operation began. Many hours after the two fleets of B-2s took off in opposite directions, the bombers bound for Iran joined up with fighter jets and flew into Iranian airspace. U.S. submarines launched 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles on the nuclear facilities in Natanz and Isfahan. As the planes approached Fordo and Natanz, the fighter jets swept in front of the bombers and fired strikes meant to suppress any surface-to-air missiles that Iran might muster, Caine said in the Pentagon briefing Sunday. At 2:10 a.m. Sunday morning Iran time, the lead bomber dropped two of the GBU-57 bombs on the Fordo site, buried deep under a mountainside and hundreds of feet of concrete. By the end of the mission, 14 of the 'bunker buster' bombs had been dropped, the first time they had ever been used in combat. Pentagon officials said Sunday that the U.S. bombers and jet fighters never encountered any enemy fire. Hours after the American aircraft had departed Iranian airspace, Trump gave a triumphant speech at the White House saying that the mission had 'completely and totally obliterated ' Iran's nuclear capabilities. He suggested that the war could end with this one-off mission if Iran would give up its nuclear program and negotiate. By Sunday afternoon, however, U.S. officials had tempered the optimism of the night before, saying that Iran's nuclear facilities might have been severely damaged, but not entirely destroyed. Vance acknowledged that there are questions about the whereabouts of Iran's stock of near-bomb-grade uranium. He and Secretary of State Marco Rubio stressed that a regime change in Tehran -- which could mean a protracted U.S. engagement -- was not the goal. But Trump, whose operation was the subject of praise in news coverage not just from allies but some of his critics, had already moved on, hinting in a Truth Social post that his goals could be shifting. 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,'' he wrote, 'but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???' This article originally appeared in