The White House informed Zelenskyy that he would not be allowed to meet Vice-President J D Vance if he didn't sign the deal
However, Kyiv refused to bow to the pressure and was finally allowed to meet Vance, reported European Pravda.
The US blackmailing happened last week as Europe scrambled to respond to Vance's warning to European leaders. The US at that time was turning its attention towards pressuring Ukraine.
A meeting between J D Vance and Zelenskyy was to take place on Friday morning at the Commerzbank building designated for the American delegation. Though Vance was present and all arrangements made, the US suddenly informed everyone that the meeting was postponed. Many believed this was due to the delayed arrival of Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
However, the real reason was the high-stakes drama unfolding between Ukraine and the US.
The Ukrainian delegation was told by the White House to agree to US President Donald Trump's version of the mineral resources deal in exchange for aid. They would be allowed to meet Vance only if that pact was signed. The US delegation believed that the setbacks faced in Ukraine, including the current security situation, and the impending peace talks between Russia and the US would force Ukraine to toe the line. However, Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskyy said no, the report said.
Kyiv was apprehensive about signing the deal as the draft was given to them just two days ago. The Ukrainian side needed time to study the deal and its economic implications. Ukraine had submitted a revised version of the deal, which was rejected by the US.
After Zelenskyy said no, the US dropped its insistence. "The harshness and pressure from US negotiators vanished as if by magic. The demand to sign the agreement was quietly dropped, and the meeting with Vance went ahead as if nothing had happened," the report added.
It also quoted an official of the Ukrainian side, who said the meeting was quite successful as Vance aligned with the Ukrainian position on many issues. "We arrived in Munich feeling pessimistic. But after the conference, our optimism has definitely grown," one member of the Ukrainian delegation told European Pravda.
After a week of intense talks on both sides of the Atlantic, Kyiv Post talks to Ukrainians in the capital about their feelings on a potential US-brokered peace deal and what it means for Ukraine.
By Kyiv Post
US President Donald Trump reached out to Russian President Vladimir Putin last week to discuss ending the war in Ukraine – without letting Kyiv know.
The administration of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reportedly learned about the start of the talks between the US and Russia on social media, leading to serious concerns among partners about how far Trump is willing to negotiate on behalf of Ukraine without Ukraine’s input.
The call was the first time leaders from the two countries have spoken since the Kremlin launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, but appears to have been just the start of a growing diplomatic relationship between the two countries.
Later this week, high-level Trump and Putin officials will meet in Saudi Arabia to continue the negotiations. Kyiv has not been invited to these talks either.
How do Ukrainians feel about these rapid-fire developments towards a peace deal brokered by the US?
In our latest video, Kyiv Post’s Corrie Nieto asks residents in the capital what they think.
US-Ukraine Deal: Worse Than WWII Reparations?
The United States attempted to pressure Ukraine into agreeing to a burdensome deal regarding its natural mineral resources, in exchange for continued military assistance, reports The Telegraph. The draft agreement proposed by the Trump administration stipulated that the U.S. would receive half of the revenue from resource extraction in Ukraine and have control over future licenses for mineral exploitation. The terms of the deal, which were compared to post-World War II reparations imposed on defeated aggressor states, were seen as highly advantageous to the U.S. and detrimental to Ukraine’s sovereignty.
The deal required Ukraine to grant the U.S. a significant stake in its rare-earth minerals, oil, gas, and other resources. However, it provided Ukraine with no security guarantees, leading President Zelensky to refuse signing the agreement. U.S. officials attempted to pressure Ukraine into agreeing by demanding that the deal be signed at the Munich Security Conference in February 2025. When Zelensky held firm, the U.S. backed off, allowing a meeting with U.S. Vice President JD Vance to proceed.
Despite the failure of the resource-sharing negotiations, the peace talks in Munich saw some unexpected progress. Vance aligned with Ukraine’s position on the need for a lasting peace, signaling that the U.S. might be more willing to consider Ukraine's long-term security needs. The outcome suggested that Ukraine could leverage growing European support in response to the tensions between the U.S. and Europe.
The draft agreement, which did not include financial aid or military assistance for Ukraine, was seen as heavily skewed in favor of private U.S. investors. Critics argued that the deal’s terms, such as the U.S. receiving 50% of revenues, would have placed Ukraine in a vulnerable position. The resource-sharing arrangement would have diverted significant economic benefits away from Ukraine, further exacerbating its struggles during the ongoing conflict.
Following Ukraine’s refusal to sign, discussions regarding the agreement have been put on hold. However, both sides agreed to continue working on a revised deal, with Ukraine still open to negotiating terms that would benefit its economy and security. The standoff highlighted the complexities of balancing national interests and international alliances in a volatile geopolitical landscape.
Sources:
- The Telegraph
- Ukrainska Pravda
- European Pravda
- Reuters
, February 18, 2025
Source: Meduza
Trump advisor and billionaire Elon Musk commented on the arrival of Russian officials in Riyadh for preparatory talks on Ukraine.
“This is what competent leadership looks like,” Musk wrote on his social media platform X, attaching a video of the Russian delegation’s arrival, filmed by the state-run outlets RIA Novosti and VGTRK. Both RIA Novosti’s parent agency, Rossiya Segodnya, and VGTRK are under U.S. sanctions.
On February 17, members of the Russian delegation arrived in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to lay the groundwork for U.S.-Russia negotiations. Among them was Kirill Dmitriev, the head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund, who has already held initial meetings with members of Trump’s team. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and presidential aide Yuri Ushakov are also set to take part in the talks.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said on February 17 that Kyiv was not aware of the negotiations in Saudi Arabia, would not participate, and would not recognize any of their outcomes.
The Trump administration has forced us to face up to harsh new realities and their challenges for Ukraine, Europe and the world generally.
So far, from the Trump administration, it is a one-way stream of concessions to Russia.
By Timothy Ash
February 18, 2025,
As many others have now concluded, a pretty remarkable Munich Security Conference. Indeed, this year’s MSC was perhaps as defining an event as was Putin’s last appearance back in 2007 which I think marked a shift in Russian policy towards the West in a malign direction. The result of that was the subsequent invasion of Georgia in 2008 followed then by his first invasion of Ukraine in 2014, and then the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Hegseth, Vance et al sent a clear message to Europe that it can no longer rely on the US security backstop. That penny, or dollar cent, dropped, but also with Vance’s speech, I think the euro cent also finally dropped that Europe does not share the same values nor interests as Trump’s USA.
Europe does not share the same values nor interests as Trump’s USA.
On the values front, Europe values much more the rule of law, the fight against corruption and kleptocracy, and we can debate free speech herein (Europe has limitations on race hate speech, perhaps a reflection of its own history with regards to the Holocaust, while in the US free speech also has limits when it comes to criticism over Gaza policy).
The longer-term conclusions for Europe have surely to be:a) Europe has to plan to be responsible for its own defense, ex the USA, so NATO is dead, and hence European countries will have to massively increase defense spending, from 2% of GDP, to 3% and perhaps on to 5%.
b) Europe might need to look for alternative alliances and security arrangements, defense cooperation, including perhaps with Turkey, the Gulf states, and even China - note given that the Trump - Putin bromance might be part of a “Reverse Nixonian”, i.e., a new U.S. - Russia alliance against China, pushed I think by likes of Dugin, Carlson, et al.
But building an alternative security/defense arrangement to save Europe will take time, and what to do with the near and present danger from Russia?
The assumption from Europe there has to be that Putin will not stop in Ukraine - surely prudence suggests Europe has to plan for the worst, so future Russian encroachments beyond Ukraine, into Moldova, the Baltics states, et al.
The Art (and Pitfalls) of a Ukraine Deal
Talks between the US and Russia have begun. But excluding Ukraine at any stage does not bode well for the security guarantees necessary to prevent Russian aggression in the future.
The best line of defense has to be to ensure Ukraine does not lose or still survives as a buffer for Europe to give it time to shore up its own defenses.
The challenge herein is Trump’s current peace overtures to Putin, and the looming Putin-Trump summit in Saudi Arabia. Having given away much of the leverage the West had over Putin (NATO membership, territorial concessions, and US security guarantees for Ukraine or for a Western peacekeeping force for Ukraine), it is hard to see what Trump can deliver which will now ensure Ukraine’s security.
What is Putin going to give as a concession? So far, from the Trump administration, it is a one-way stream of concessions to Russia.
So far, from the Trump administration, it is a one-way stream of concessions to Russia.
Featured
Ukraine’s Armed Forces Deserve Better Than Broken Promises, Betrayal
Trump’s Secret Peace Deal with Putin? Ex-Trump Insider Reveals All
Ukraine’s ‘Madyar’s Birds’ Take Down Russia’s ‘Invulnerable’ Drones
Putin will surely see Trump as a soft touch, a weak, incompetent negotiator, and will push for maximum concessions from Ukraine, including limitations on its future military capability, regime change in Kyiv, or even constitutional changes in Ukraine to essentially ensure Russia’s veto on its future orientation.
That is a recipe for state failure in Ukraine. Herein either Russia will exploit the limitations on Ukraine’s future military capability to invade again, or the lack of security in Ukraine will ensure its failed future economic development, which will mean future economic, social and political weakness, again to be exploited by Putin.
The nightmare now for Europe is Ukraine’s state failure, which would mean tens of millions of Ukrainians refugees moving West (straining the political, social and economic fabric of Europe, further fueling the far right), and Russia subsuming Ukraine’s now enormous and effective military industrial complex. The combination of Russia and Ukraine’s military industrial complexes - first and second now in Europe - would be an absolutely existential threat to Europe.
No doubt European politicians have argued the above to Trump until they are blue in the face, but clearly, Trump has few cares.
He clearly just sees Ukraine, like Gaza, as a real estate asset, an asset to be leveraged, which was I think seen by the quite remarkable trip last week of Scott Bessant, US Treasury Secretary to Kyiv, armed with an agreement that Ukraine had to sign away half its natural resource wealth for a very vague future commitment of US support.
Actually, as far as Trump is concerned this is all just pay back for the hundreds of billions of dollars of US support already given to Ukraine following the full-scale invasion. Let Trump not let actual facts get in the way of his argument - given well established data suggests that US support has, as yet, been less than $100 billion. Pretty obscene that a country that has lost hundreds of thousands of people dead and injured in the defense of Western liberal market democracy is now being sent an invoice for the pleasure.
When faced with the likely Trump - Putin peace plan, which will likely involve no concessions to Ukraine, and particularly not on the most important point for Ukraine, its future security, I think Ukraine will be minded to walk away from any deal. Why would Ukraine accept any ceasefire that fails to provide any assurance as to its future security?
Why would Ukraine accept any ceasefire that fails to provide any assurance as to its future security?
Trump clearly wants a speedy deal - to secure his Nobel prize - then Ukraine likely will use its leverage while it has it and will play hard to get. It still has close 1 million troops on the battlefield, an ability to produce 40% of its own munitions, considerable munitions and financing (over $140 billion available to it) in reserves, and the prospect that Europe still has an incentive in ensuring it does not lose - as Europe knows it will be the next to feel the sharp end of a Russian bayonet. Europe will continue to fund Ukraine’s defense and hope to secure munitions to assist therein from wherever globally.
For Russia, the above means an extended war, little sanctions relief from Europe, at least, and the reality that while Trump is likely to step aside from supporting Ukraine, Russia still has to take the victory, on the battlefield. This still suggests years of war and sacrifice for Russia, and Russians. And the longer the war goes on, the weaker still Putin will look.
And the leverage Ukraine has will be in embarrassing the US, and Trump, as being wimps in the face of an aggressor, and of damaging US alliances, and trust in the US as a partner, for the bigger US battle for hegemony with China.
As is, Ukraine has little incentive to play ball with Trump’s sell out (down the river) peace plan.
The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.
Reprinted from the author’s @tashecon blog. See the original here.
U.S.-Russia talks on Ukraine crisis omit key players: Ukraine and Europe
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio arrived in Riyadh on Monday, with reports indicating that he will begin talks with Russian officials on the Ukraine crisis there on Tuesday, excluding key players in the conflict: Ukraine and Europe.
In addition to Rubio, U.S. Middle East Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz are expected to attend the talks. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian Presidential Assistant Yuri Ushakov will represent Russia in the negotiations.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced on Monday that Ukraine will not participate in the U.S.-Russia talks and will not accept any outcome that excludes Ukraine.
Currently in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Zelenskyy is set to visit Saudi Arabia soon. He clarified that his visit to Saudi Arabia on Tuesday "has no connection" to the U.S.-Russia talks, focusing instead on discussions to lower oil prices with Saudi Arabia. However, he noted that he would use the opportunity to learn about the progress of the U.S.-Russia negotiations through Saudi officials.
Concerned about being sidelined in the negotiations, Europe leaders have taken action.
French President Emmanuel Macron convened an emergency meeting in Paris on Monday, bringing together leaders from NATO, the European Commission, and key European countries, including France, Germany, Britain, Poland, Spain, Italy, Denmark, and the Netherlands, to coordinate a unified European response ahead of the Russian-U.S. talks.
Chen Yu, deputy director of the Eurasian Institute at the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, told CMG that Europe considers Ukraine as a core interest. He noted that Europeans are worried that the current U.S.-Russia approach, bypassing Europe, could undermine European interests and lead to a peace solution that sacrifices concerns of Ukraine and Europe. Additionally, Europe fears this could result in further expansion of Russian influence in the West.
After the meeting, Macron spoke with U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy. He later tweeted that Europe seeks a "strong and lasting peace" for Ukraine, one that includes "strong and credible security guarantees" for the Ukrainian people.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz also reiterated Germany's ongoing support for Ukraine, rejecting the notion that Ukraine should accept "everything that is presented to it under any conditions." He emphasized the importance of unity between U.S. and European allies in safeguarding European security. "There must be no division of security and responsibility between Europe and the United States," Scholz stated. "NATO is based on the principle of always acting together and sharing the risks. This must not be called into question."
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, speaking outside the Ukraine summit in Paris, called the future of Ukraine an "existential" issue for Europe. He suggested that Britain may consider deploying forces to Ukraine if a lasting peace agreement is reached.
However, Chancellor Scholz dismissed the idea of European countries sending ground troops to Ukraine, calling it "totally premature." He did confirm that European nations are prepared to allocate "at least two percent" of their GDP to strengthen Europe's defense.
Chen explained that Europe is pushing to play a more prominent role in resolving the Russia-Ukraine conflict amid ongoing U.S.-Russia negotiations. However, there are significant divisions within Europe regarding security guarantees for Ukraine and the potential for troop deployment after a ceasefire.
He pointed out that any realistic peace settlement would likely address Ukraine's security concerns, which are central to the country's interests. If such a solution requires Europe to take on more responsibilities, Europe may be willing to do so, including engaging in discussions about troop deployment. However, he cautioned that the situation remains complex, with substantial differences in positions, requiring ongoing observation of how events unfold.
OPINION: The Art (and Pitfalls) of a Ukraine Deal
Talks between the US and Russia have begun. But excluding Ukraine at any stage does not bode well for the security guarantees necessary to prevent Russian aggression in the future.
By Lord Ashcroft
KYIV POST
February 18, 2025
As discussions on Ukraine’s future intensify, one recurring notion in diplomatic circles is that Donald Trump has set his sights on a Nobel Peace Prize by negotiating an end to the war. However, if he mishandles this delicate process, that prize will remain far beyond his reach. If his proposed deal leaves Ukraine vulnerable, fractures NATO, or emboldens further Russian aggression, his legacy will not be peace – it will be appeasement.
As my recent polling found, while most Ukrainians believe Trump’s election will mean a swifter end to the war, many also fear this will be on terms less favorable to Ukraine. The recent remarks by US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth do not inspire confidence. He stated unequivocally that a return to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is off the table. Does this mean the United States is prepared to disregard the Belovezh Accords of 1991, which affirmed Ukraine’s sovereignty within internationally recognized borders?
More troublingly, it would mark yet another broken American commitment to Ukraine – following the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, which assured Ukraine’s security in exchange for surrendering the world’s second-largest nuclear arsenal. A failure to uphold these agreements sends a disastrous signal, not just to Russia but to potential aggressors worldwide.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has made it clear that no deal will be accepted without Ukraine’s involvement. He has also implied that the US can no longer be fully trusted to align with European interests in the region. Gen. Keith Kellogg, Trump’s top security envoy, recently echoed the necessity of Ukraine’s presence at the negotiating table – but was noticeably vague about European involvement. Excluding Europe from a settlement on European security would be a serious and costly mistake.
First US-Russia Meetings Held in Riyadh Ahead of Official Saudi Talks
The head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund revealed that he has already met with members of US President Donald Trump’s team in the Saudi capital.
If a peace deal is to have any legitimacy, it must satisfy several key conditions.
Advertisement
The only real assurance of lasting peace for Ukraine is NATO membership.
First, it cannot leave Ukraine as an exposed buffer state, vulnerable to another Russian invasion in the coming years. A ceasefire that merely freezes the conflict without robust security guarantees would be a repeat of the failed Minsk agreements of 2014 and 2015, which Moscow systematically violated. The only real assurance of lasting peace for Ukraine is NATO membership. Anything short of that leaves the door open for further Russian aggression.
Secondly, any peace deal must consider the reality on the ground. Russia’s economy, despite Western sanctions, has been kept afloat by its ability to bypass restrictions – particularly through the sale of oil to India and other third parties. If Trump is serious about exerting pressure on Moscow, he must address these loopholes rather than force Ukraine into an unfavorable settlement. He must also understand that the very survival of Ukraine as a sovereign state depends on continued military and economic support.
Meanwhile, as these negotiations develop, Europe must step up. The continent has long relied on American military backing, but with Washington potentially shifting its stance, European nations must take responsibility for their own security. Trump has already made it clear that he expects Europe to contribute more to defense, and rightly so. Poland has led by example, committing 5% of its GDP to defense, while the Baltic states are set to reach this benchmark by next year. But others, including key Western European powers, have lagged behind. If Europe wants a real say in shaping Ukraine’s future and ensuring long-term stability on the continent, it must match its words with action.
The recent Munich Security Conference reflected these tensions. While European leaders expressed continued support for Ukraine, the reality is that decisive commitments on increased defense spending and military aid remain insufficient. In the meantime, senior figures from the Trump administration are reportedly in Saudi Arabia to engage in talks with Russian and Ukrainian negotiators. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff are expected to push for an agreement in the coming days.
We must reject the notion that a rushed, ill-conceived deal is the only path forward.
Zelensky, however, remains deeply skeptical of Putin’s intentions, and for good reason. Russia has shown time and again that it does not honor ceasefires or diplomatic agreements. The OSCE monitoring missions that oversaw previous ceasefire lines were ignored and rendered powerless in the face of Russian violations. So, the critical question remains: who will enforce any new ceasefire? Will there be peacekeeping troops on the ground? If so, which nations would be willing to send them? And what happens if – when – Russia violates the terms again?
These are fundamental concerns that must be addressed before any deal is signed. A flawed agreement that fails to ensure Ukraine’s security could lead to an internal crisis, possibly even civil unrest. The thousands of battle-hardened Ukrainian soldiers who have sacrificed so much will not accept a settlement that undermines their cause. Any agreement that leaves Russia with the capacity to strike again, or forces Ukraine into concessions that betray its sovereignty, will not bring peace—it will simply set the stage for the next war.
The stakes could not be higher. We must reject the notion that a rushed, ill-conceived deal is the only path forward. A just peace must be one that guarantees Ukraine’s long-term security, holds Russia accountable, and reinforces the strength of Western alliances. Anything less would be a betrayal of everything Ukraine has fought for – and would all but guarantee that history repeats itself.
Lord Ashcroft KCMG PC is an international businessman, philanthropist, author and pollster. For more information on his work, visit lordashcroft.com. Follow him on X/Facebook @LordAshcroft.
The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.
“If you believe there are going to be thirty-three people sitting at the same table (…) in all probability, the answer is no, not at all,” Kellogg explained.
by Euractiv | February 18, 2025,
European views will be taken into account and Ukraine will not be pressured into a deal, the US envoy for Ukraine and Russia told a group of reporters at NATO HQ.
Keith Kellogg’s two-day visit to Brussels comes amid growing unease among European allies that a future Ukraine peace deal would be struck over their and Kyiv’s heads, as neither of them is expected to participate in the US-Russia talks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, tomorrow.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said over the weekend that Kyiv would not agree to a deal that would be detrimental to his country or that resulted from negotiations in which he didn’t participate.
Kellogg said “nobody” would impose decisions on Zelenskyy as the “elected leader of a sovereign nation” and the decision about striking a deal would ultimately be the Ukrainians’.
Trump’s Ukraine envoy is expected to travel to Kyiv tomorrow night for a three-day visit, where he is scheduled to meet with the Ukrainian leader. He will then return to Washington and continue a tour of NATO capitals in the next few weeks.
At the table
Asked by Euractiv about his comments made on stage in Munich that “Europeans would not be at the table,” Kellogg clarified that this would not mean European concerns would not be taken into account.
“If you believe there are going to be thirty-three people sitting at the same table – exactly the same table – during the discussion, in all probability, the answer is no, not at all,” Kellogg said.
Trump is Selling Ukraine Down the River, and Europe With It
The Trump administration has forced us to face up to harsh new realities and their challenges for Ukraine, Europe and the world generally.
“If ‘at the table’ means that your views are heard, understood, transmitted, the answer is absolutely,” he said.
Washington sent a questionnaire to European capitals earlier last week to determine what resources they would be ready to contribute to a possible future peacekeeping force.
“Before any type of discussion and security guarantees is finalized, of course, those discussions are going to take place,” Kellogg said.
“Answers to those questions will be determined as you come up with the final process,” he added, throwing the ball back to the Europeans’ court.
Status concerns
Kellogg’s absence from the US negotiating team travelling to Riyadh raised questions over his leverage on Trump’s efforts to draw up a peace proposal – and how European input will find its way into them.
Responding to concerns about his status in the process, Kellogg said, “That doesn’t mean that the team is not fully synced.”
“They are going to come out of the Middle East, I will come out of Ukraine – we will go back to being synched up,” he said, adding he had a joint conference call with the negotiating team over the phone after Munich.
The team includes Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff.
See the original report for Euractiv by Alexandra Brzozowski here.
No comments:
Post a Comment