Why the US-Ukraine minerals deal changed

Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: AQuick Take on Ukraine, the United States and Ukraine. Donald Trump and Zelensky now have a preliminary agreement on a critical minerals deal. Remember this is the deal that originally President Trump had the secretary of treasury show up in Kyiv, and say, "You got to sign this right now in the meeting." Zelensky was unhappy, and said it was a colonial deal, it was exploitative. And Trump got angry and said Zelensky's a dictator who only has 4% approval. And now, have they kissed and made up? Well, not exactly, but they're certainly talking again. And it looks like Zelensky will be coming to Washington on Friday to meet with President Trump, and sign this agreement, which will go through parliament fairly easily. Zelensky has a majority in Parliament with his party, so he can get it approved if he wants it.

What is this going to matter? What changes here? Well, a couple of points. First of all is it's a win, and we shouldn't be surprised. Back at the beginning of January, in our top risks, one of the things that we suggested was that Trump was going to get a lot more wins than a lot of his opponents believed, because he is the most powerful leader in the world. He's in a very strong position and he's willing to use that power against both adversaries and nominal friends. And a lot of people are scared of him, and so they give him what he wants. And that is what we are seeing here, especially for the Ukrainians who are in as weak a position as pretty much anyone that Trump is pushing around right now. So, he gets to say, "Look at this deal. Biden was giving away all of this American aid, and now I'm going and getting money back."

Now, that's not a great look in the sense that other countries around the world look at the United States and say, "We can't trust you guys because you change your mind every administration." So, if one president says that this is going to happen, and the next can just rip it up, and that's every four years or less, then why should we engage in a deal with you? Whether it's the Paris Climate Accord, or the World Health Organization, or the Iranian nuclear deal, the JCPOA, or it is aid to Ukraine that suddenly is not aid to Ukraine anymore. Now, Trump was saying that the United States has given $500 billion in aid to Ukraine, which is vastly more than the Europeans, and all of the European money is loans. That is of course wildly exaggerated, meaning not true, but there is a kernel of truth in it. So it's worth unpacking.

The Americans have provided a little over $110 billion, mostly in aid, 90% of that has been directly aid to the Ukrainians so far. Though, that money doesn't go directly to Ukraine. It goes primarily to American corporations, contractors, who get the money, who do the job, who make profit on it, and who service Ukraine. So, it's not as if there's a lot of corruption in Ukraine on the back of American aid because the money isn't going directly to Ukraine. The Europeans have given more money, more like €135 billion as opposed to the $110 that the US has given. The EU has a larger population, so per capita, it's not all that different. A lot of that European money, about 60% is not aid, it's actually loans in some form, though loans on exceptionally favorable terms to the Ukrainians. So, the fact that there is more aid that is going to Ukraine from Europe that has to be repaid is actually true.

And when Macron pushed back against Trump on that, he pushed back in a favorable way to Macron, shocking, but didn't also tell the full story. Part of the reason why nobody believes anything that politicians say these days, and one of the reasons I don't want to be a politician. Okay, leave that aside. So, Zelensky comes to the US, he does a deal, is he doing a colonial deal? No, another exaggeration. Trump was saying that Zelensky and the Ukrainians have no leverage, they have no cards. That's why he doesn't need to talk to him anymore. Well, if that's the case, then why is it the United States significantly altered the terms of the deal from a week ago, when Zelensky said no, to yesterday when Zelensky said yes? Before the $500 billion was all supposed to pay for previous aid, that term is out of this general agreement.

Also, the idea the Americans would've full control of the investment vehicle, that full control is no longer in these terms of the agreement. So, the terms have been substantially altered, and the reason for that is because Zelensky, of course, does have leverage. Most Republicans in Congress, House and Senate, support Zelensky a lot more than they support Putin, and they've not been happy about the idea that Trump has been flipping to a Russia relationship as opposed to support for Ukraine. Most Americans, including Republican voters, trust Zelensky more than they trust Putin, and they aren't, it's not the thing they're voting on, but they're not super happy about that. And of course, the Europeans themselves very upset about the idea that the Americans would suddenly break from that alliance. Does this matter to Trump? It doesn't matter immensely, but it isn't zero, because if it was zero, then he wouldn't have changed his deal one iota.

It's not because he's getting soft, it's because he recognizes that the other party has leverage. Now, what are the Europeans going to do? French president came to the United States yesterday, it was a reasonably productive conversation, but it didn't lead to any commitment of the US for security guarantees to Ukraine. Neither does the deal that the Ukrainians are signing ensure security guarantees. It does buy a little time. It does show that the US is going to continue to engage with Ukraine, and have some equities on the ground, and maybe continue to provide some weapons, some armaments going forward, some of the so-called strategic enablers, like help with targeting and intelligence, while the Americans are engaging with the Russians, directly and bilaterally, to try to structure a engagement, a re-engagement, of those two countries. I think that Trump is maintaining a lot of optionality for himself here.

If it turns out that the Europeans are going to spend a lot more on defense over the coming weeks and make those commitments, a lot more to the Ukrainians and make those commitments, and be willing to stand troops on the ground, a lot of them on the ground in Ukraine in a post-ceasefire environment, then Trump can pivot, say, "Look at all the things the Europeans are doing that Biden could never have gotten them to do, and now I'm willing to engage because the Europeans are actually picking up their fair share. Because the Ukrainians are going to give the Americans their fair share for doing all this work, it's not on the back of the American taxpayers.”

But if they don't, and frankly, I think it's more likely than not that the Europeans aren't able to get their act together in such a dramatic way in such a short period of time, then Trump hasn't really lost anything. He's engaging in this deal with the Russians, the Ukrainians have a deal with the US, the US doesn't have to put any money into if they don't feel like it, and this re-engagement with Russia precedes a pace that Trump wants. So, that is I think where we are heading right now. I'm not expecting much from the UK Prime Minister, Keir Starmer's visit to the US, he has a much more difficult and let's say distant and cool relationship with the US president than Macron does, and he doesn't have an awful lot to offer directly, though, they're going to step up their defense spending to maybe get to 2.5% over the coming years. Still nowhere close to what Trump wants or demands.

Final thing I would mention is that all of these conversations are happening in the context of the United States that has spent enormous amounts and wasted enormous amounts on national security and on wars over the past decades. I think it is worth asking, in an alternative history, if after Soviet collapsed, what would the world have looked like if the US had decided to disband NATO, didn't need it anymore because it was the end of history? What would've happened if the United States had gone down to 2%, or 2.5% of defense spend of GDP, and spent that money primarily on focus on Asia, together with American allies in Asia, like Japan, like Australia, like South Korea? What would've happened if the United States had not engaged in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and spent trillions of dollars as a consequence?

Would the world be better off without NATO? Would the world be better off without those wars? And I think the answer is at least worth considering, and while I am not at all comfortable with the United States continually going back on its commitments to allies, continuing ripping up its commitments, because I think that undermines US power, and I'm not comfortable with throwing the allies under the bus, who have fought with the United States side by side, shoulder by shoulder in Afghanistan, and then telling them you're basically on your own in Ukraine.

I'm not comfortable with any of that because I think the alliances matter, but I understand that a lot of Americans are very happy to rip up these arrangements because for the last three plus decades, the US has made huge mistakes by over-supporting and over-funding national security and defense. And as a consequence of that, I think this is a discussion that is way overdue, and a lot of things are going to be broken because we didn't have those conversations in a more rational, civilized, and engaged manner. So, it's worth talking about that too. Look, that's it for me, and I'll talk to you all real soon.