Trump Finds a Face-Saving Way To Give Ukraine 'the Right To Fight On'
Forget boots on the ground. Now we’ll have Americans “on the land.”

If one thing is consistent about President Donald Trump's foreign policy, it's the feeling that America is getting ripped off. That feeling explains why he's sometimes a hawk and a dove at once, why he's been both for and against withdrawing from Afghanistan, why he wants to raise and lower oil supplies at the same time—and why he's against U.S. military aid to Ukraine.
"Think of it, a modestly successful comedian, [Ukrainian President] Volodymyr Zelenskyy, talked the United States of America into spending $350 Billion Dollars, to go into a War that couldn't be won, that never had to start, but a War that he, without the U.S. and 'TRUMP,' will never be able to settle," Trump wrote on Truth Social earlier this month.
But Zelenskyy seems to have figured out how to satisfy Trump's feelings without changing much in the short term. Ukraine has agreed to put "50 percent of all revenues earned from the future monetization of all relevant Ukrainian Government-owned natural resource assets" into a U.S.-Ukrainian reconstruction fund, according to a copy of the deal leaked to The Kyiv Independent. Zelenskyy is expected to sign the deal on Friday.
In return, Ukraine gets "military equipment and the right to fight on," Trump told reporters on Tuesday. He added on Wednesday that "we will be on the land, and that way there is going to be automatic security because nobody is going to be messing around with our people," although he hinted that European countries will be responsible for any actual military deployments.
Trump also bragged about being the first president to supply Ukraine with lethal weapons such as Javelin missiles. "I gave the Javelins, and the Javelins are the things that knocked out those tanks right at the beginning of the war. They said that—that [former President Barack] Obama, at the time, gave sheets, and Trump gave Javelins. Well, I was the one that did that," Trump told reporters on Wednesday.
Russian President Vladimir Putin brushed off the U.S.-Ukrainian deal, stating on television that Russians "undoubtedly have, I want to emphasize, significantly more resources of this kind than Ukraine."
The deal is a pretty good one for Ukraine, which is trading something in the future for military support in the present. The agreement explicitly excludes "current sources of revenues which are already part of the general budget revenues of Ukraine," meaning that Ukraine is only giving up a share of new resource projects. And even the U.S. share will be invested in Ukrainian reconstruction projects.
Trump's original demand was that Ukraine pay $500 billion, which Zelenskyy said "10 generations of Ukrainians will have to pay back." (In reality, the war has cost American taxpayers $182.8 billion and European taxpayers $138.7 billion, the BBC reports, citing figures from the U.S. Department of Defense and Germany's nonprofit Kiel Institute for World Economy.) The new deal doesn't mention either of the numbers Trump threw out, $350 billion or $500 billion.
Ukraine currently earns about $1.1 billion per year in natural resources. While the Ukrainian government has claimed to be sitting on massive deposits of rare earths and other critical minerals, the business press is more skeptical. "Another thing to note is that the world's top miners, who've spent much of the last two decades scouring the globe for untapped deposits of commodities, showed little interest in Ukraine before the war," Bloomberg News pointed out.
The country is also sitting on large gas reserves, but foreign attempts to invest in that gas have fallen through. Shell and Chevron pulled out of major Ukrainian shale gas projects in 2014, during the first Russian attacks on Ukraine, although the war may have been an excuse to give up on an investment with disappointing returns. For that matter, some of Ukraine's major mineral deposits are now under Russian occupation.
All this points to the main weakness in the agreement: It's a deal between the U.S. and Ukraine on sharing the burdens of war, not a deal between Russia and Ukraine to resolve the actual security issues causing the war. On the campaign trail, Trump had promised to end the war before even taking office. Instead, he's claiming victory over an agreement to keep the war going.
Zelenskyy himself sees the deal as a way to secure even bigger U.S. commitments down the road. "The success will depend on our talk with President Trump, if I understand the broader picture that he sees, if I understand this is all a part of broader security guarantees for Ukraine," the Ukrainian president told reporters on Wednesday.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Glad Trump gave them the right to fight on. Because they don't have a right to fight unless he gives it to them.
They would still have the right to fight. Equipment to do so is a different story.
If you don't think they are so tied to our cash, then what's the problem if we don't give it to them?
Trump is funding the Israeli holocaust against Palestinians in Gaza and bragging that he will build vacation resorts on their bodies with his international war criminal buddy Netanyahu.
He’s declared war on the entire world, except Israel.
Hitler will “save face” before Trump ever does.
Herr Goebbels heard from.
Good. I’m ire stuere will be a glory hole near one of the resorts for you. You can make a modest living sucking off tourists for money. And you can rant and rave about the Joos in between clients.
Oh, and refuted.
Refuted.
Yeah "right" isn't the right word to use there.
Poor sarc.
Pour Sarc.
What is it 7 million people who have fleed Ukraine in the last few years? They have voted with their feet and they have voted to not fight.
A couple hundred thousand Russian casualties show that some of them have been fighting back.
Lol! UkroNazis have at least twice the casualties of Russia.
Thanks Putinbot. Russia was able to turn what they thought would be a cakewalk that would be over in matter of weeks into a meat grinder for both sides. Because their leadership is corrupt and incompetent. Ukraine was pitifully weak compared to Russia and 3 years later Russia is still grinding it out with nearly 100,000 of their citizens dead in a pointless war. So congratulations I guess.
Where are you getting your information? Russian casualty figures have not been posted by the government.
Tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers have deserted. Many more young men fled the country. Russia has taken back the Donbass and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
Ukraine is running out of bodies to send to the slaughter and Zelensky is too busy doing lines of coke to care.
Ukraine's infrastructure is being destroyed, energy production is nearly dead and their front lines continue to collapse.
That IS THE TRUTH.
So what is the all knowledgeable JohnZ's plan for post-war Ukraine? Abandon them to whatever Putin wishes to do? Have Russia occupy Ukraine so there would be never ending insurgency by pissed off Ukrainians taking revenge for "destroyed infrastructure, energy production" all the dead Ukranian civilians, soldiers etc... etc...? Not to mention the war crimes the Russian army is credibly accused of?
There is no winning for Putin because Ukrainians will never forgive or forget. Everybody in Ukraine has lost something. There is no going back to normal at this point.
Russia couldn't beat a pitifully weak country in conventional war. 3 years into a war that was supposed to be over in days. Forget the fact that it was totally immoral, they are a weak ass paper tiger. 95,000 Russian troops dead (bbc). And the great Black Sea naval performance lol. completely pointless war of aggression. And loser fake conservatives simp for Putin. What a world we live in.
Ukraine has the right to do whatever they want. We have no obligation to fund them. I was really hoping to see just a clear end to funding that pointless and wasteful war.
There is zero threat to the United States of America from a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Although I loathe Putin and feel very badly for Ukraine, the most directly impacted nations and people are the Europeans. Insofar as NATO is the superficial excuse for the USA to "fund" Ukraine's fully justified defense, then the USA should pull out of NATO - or should have pulled out long before Russia invaded Ukraine to avoid sending the wrong message - and if the Europeans want to help Ukraine defend itself, by all means have at it!
Isolationism is a tried and failed foreign policy for the U.S. What worked was making a military alliance with almost every European country that wasn't under Moscow's boot after WWII. And the ones that didn't join NATO? We still made sure to have good trade and diplomatic relations with them, if that was possible. (Switzerland, Sweden, and Austria are the ones that most people have at least heard of, even if they couldn't find them on a map. And Sweden joined last year, because of Russia's aggression.)
The new German Chancellor made a point to talk about the need for Europe to not rely on the U.S. Anyone around here that thinks that will be good for us is not understanding where so much of our leverage comes from.
"Isolationism is a tried and failed foreign policy for the U.S..."
"Isolationism" is a lefty myth, perpetrated like lefty shits like this. After WWI, the US population had no interest in bailing one Euro out against the other.
Pearl Harbor and Hitlers declaration of war changed that.
If the US had been actually "isolationist", it would have taken far more than that.
isolationism has never even been tried, guess its too late now
Isolationism is a tried and failed foreign policy for the U.S.
Is that what this is? Refusing to be dragged into an inevitable wider EU war? Refusing to carry the majority of the financial burden of protecting CosPlay Countries? Refusing to send our children to fight for countries that hate us and do not share our values?
There is a continuum, and pretending it is as black and white as Isolationism On/Isolationism Off is simplistic, naïve, and ignorant.
I was really hoping to see just a clear end to funding that pointless and wasteful war.
IDK, admittedly optimistic, but I think Trump thinks he can end the war and walk away with a pot of gold. Zelensky is a sucker, I'd take him to the cleaners with a 7-2 offsuit hand. Trump rightly points out that Putin holds all the cards and, in that contest, personally I'd fold.
But yeah, to your point: Minerals deals just means the next or the next, next administration is going to have contractors in Ukraine enriching Uranium or whatever in open-secret facilities that nobody knows about until Putin's successor or successor's successor gets fed up with it.
Zelensky is a sucker, I'd take him to the cleaners with a 7-2 offsuit hand. Trump rightly points out that Putin holds all the cards and, in that contest, personally I'd fold.
Zelensky is a "sucker", yet Trump is the guy that walked into a negotiation with Putin having already conceded two of his major demands (no NATO for Ukraine and Russia gets to keep at least some of the conquered territory). Did you get the idea that going into a negotiation admitting that the opposing side "holds all the cards" is smart from Trump's book or something?
You really are just an astonishing retard, aren't you? What benefit does it give to NATO to have Ukraine in it? What worldwide stress would it have provoked to have Mexico in the Warsaw Pact?
Why would the US ever approve Ukraine in NATO? What is the benefit?
To be blunt, why should the US even be in NATO? So we can foot the bill to bail Europe out of whatever asinine cock-up they put themselves in?
The fucking pile of lefty shit JasonT20 supports murder as a preventative:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”
Eat shit and die, asshole.
Does that include shelling the Donbass and murdering 12,000 ethnic Russians?
Молодец, Джон З. Рубли уже на почте. Продолжайте в том же духе, товарищ Кремль.
I'd, personally, like a clearer explanation for why the European Union, with three times the population of Russia, four times the PPP GDP of Russia, and nine times the nominal GDP of Russia, can't by itself shoulder the burden of supporting Ukraine against Russia. After all, it's now been clearly proven that Russia can't just simply overrun the place and then continue on westward.
I'm far from isolationist here; I'm perfectly willing to let the EU buy all the arms they want from US manufacturers (maybe minus some particularly sensitive items), and to backstop things by maintaining our NATO commitment to the defense of actual NATO members from Russian invasion.
I just don't see why we should be giving Ukraine anything at this point. Let the EU decide if the expense of supporting Ukraine against Russia is worth it to them. If it isn't, how in hell can it be worth it to us?
Simple: nuclear deterrent. Ukraine gave up its nuclear deterrent in exchange for a false security guarantee from the west. Now it is paying the price as the notoriously cowardly Europeans prosper while Americans bankrupt ourselves.
Yeah, the Europeans have really been letting the estrogen flow. Bunch of socialist pussies.
So, the directly relevant excerpt of the actual text of 1994's Budapest Memorandum is that:
So, if Russia attacked or threatened Ukraine with nuclear weapons, we were . . . obliged to go to the UN Security Council.
And in response to Russia's 2014 and 2022 conventional arms aggressions against Ukraine, which, sure, arguably included a threat of nuclear aggression, we did indeed go to the UN Security Council. Which was sufficient to discharge all the written obligations of the actual non-treaty promise issued by the Clinton Administration without any Congressional authorization.
It might be argued that in addition to the actual literal promise, the Clinton Administration made an implicit moral commitment to the Ukrainians for the U.S. to do more than just go to a body where the Russians were already known in 1994 to have a veto.
All right, fine. Even if I concede that, and that it bound us decades later (even without Senate ratification), well, we've already done something more than that, thanks.
I think it is, in fact, utterly ridiculous for anyone to claim that Ukraine has a moral right to indefinite materiel support from the United States based on one president's unratified 1994 pledge to merely raise an issue with the UN Security Council.
I'm sure the Ukrainians now wish their leaders had gotten an unlimited U.S. security pledge of some sort in exchange for giving up their nukes. But that isn't, in fact, what they were given in 1994. They have already received from the U.S. exactly what they were promised, and substantially more. The check has been cashed, the debt has been paid.
If your argument is correct, that the U.S. didn't have a treaty obligation to do anything to assist Ukraine, then surely the U.S. also didn't have any similar obligation to Russia to not seek close relations and even NATO membership with sovereign states near or on Russia's border that Russia thinks they have a right to dominate.
I hear all too often from people that support Trump and seem to take his view that the war was somehow our fault, or Ukraine's fault or some similar Bizarro-World nonsense.
I will agree that we did not have a treaty obligation to not do that. Which doesn't mean that it wasn't completely fucking retarded to do so.
The war was Russia's fault. Biden made it apparent that we were pathetically weak, encouraging Russia to go for it.
"I hear all too often from people that support Trump and seem to take his view that the war was somehow our fault, or Ukraine's fault or some similar Bizarro-World nonsense."
No, you are confusing hearing that you're a fucking lefty retard with the voices in your head, TDS-addled steaming pile of shit.
It is our fault.
If it wasn't for that hare brained moron in the White House, Barack Obama, this disaster would have been avoided.
But thanks to Obomber and his little zio- whores, Victoria Nudelman and Samantha Power he sent to Ukraine to push the Maiden, along with help from NATO/North Atlantic Terrorist Organization and with the help of Israeli snipers to overthrow the democratically elected government at that time.
The rest is history. So yes, it is our fault.
As usual.
Social welfare states made possible by US defense spending.
In reality, the war has cost American taxpayers $182.8 billion and European taxpayers $138.7 billion, the BBC reports, citing figures from the U.S. Department of Defense and Germany's nonprofit Kiel Institute for World Economy.
Even that number is probably very high. Whatever we supplied from Cold War era stockpiles is not worth what it is on 'the books' as worth. It is worth yesterday's cold pizza. Only if it is replaced does that create a real cost. The ammo and Patriot systems all have a real cost. US equipment that was already in NATO has no cost at all if we are lowering our exposure to NATO. Same as the equipment we abandoned in Afghanistan without spending the money to bring it back home and deploy it elsewhere.
At any rate - the only interesting thing is what the US foreign policy is now re Europe, Russia, and China. Ukraine is peripheral at best.
"we will be on the land, and that way there is going to be automatic security because nobody is going to be messing around with our people,"
Wait...What?
Shh.
Whatever deal is ultimately arrived at will happen in tandem with a ceasefire. Russia will get exactly what they set out to get and no more. But the story that Petti conspicuously missed is that Trump is proposing that the US, Russia and China cut their defense budgets by 50 percent. Putin says he's onboard and China seems interested as well.
China seems interested as well.
I read China rejected the idea. Do you have updated information suggesting otherwise?
China has rejected any change in their defense spending. They are Ok with US and Russian reductions
I do like that Trump is addressing this. We overspend so much. That said - Trump is also killing off every real alliance we have and that will make defense more expensive
Cite?
"...That said - Trump is also killing off every real alliance we have and that will make defense more expensive..."
JFucked.
Is.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
Apparently, saner minds have been working a long time to have Trump overcome his Narcissistic Rage at Zelenskyy. BEWARE: Both Trump's personality disorders (Histrionic and Narcissism) are the permanent ways he behaves. Within an instant, his desire to kill Zelenskyy and ruin Ukraine may break thrugh to the surface. Trump's problem is that he has surrounded himself with gross incompetents, like Hegseth, Garbbard), who are incapable of providing sound advice. Someone, it seems, may have had a some success keeping Trump from totally jumping of the cliff to please his lover boy, Putin.
So many words.
Zero worth in any of them.
Good job.
Did you masturbate furiously as you typed that?
It's kind of a wonder that the keyboard survived long enough to finish.
Stuff your TDS up your ass; your head is begging for company, shitbag.
Donald Trump is an abuser.......
.....of adjectives. The best ever... ...never before seen ..
I used to hate this. Now it makes me smile. The total absurdity of most of his speech patterns used to make me cringe. Now I just smile knowing that no self respecting liberal, progressive, woke type person could resist hating the man for that alone.
I am cautiously thinking the winning might actually be true.
Iowa just voted to keep me out of women's places and sports. Supposedly the first time "civil" rights have been rolled back in the US. As the Iowa Reps stated, we had to pick one side or the other. It was not a toss up. Democrats are crying.
To celebrate the rolling back of civil rights and anti-discrimination laws sad. This will legalize all discrimination against trans people. This is not what is done in a free county.
"To celebrate the rolling back of civil rights and anti-discrimination laws sad."
Just like the laws you claim being broken, as a TDS-addled lying pile of lefty shit, you cannot back any of your statements with cites.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
"OH NO. MEN WILL BE TREATED LIKE...MEN! THE HORRORS!"
You being a nut job does not make you a woman.
To roll-back "gender-identity" as a protected characteristic is fine by me. Given that most of the protected characteristics are immutable and given the length of the identity alphabet and the fact that "gender-fluid" and "demi-sexual" and "free-spirit" are to be accepted as identities means that the progressive concept of gender-identity is about a fixed as a hair-style or fashion.
These protections are also not fundamental rights, they are special carveouts meant to emphasize specific types of discrimination that are not to be tolerated. We do not have carve-outs for fat people but some want them. We do not have carve-outs for tattoos and other aesthetic body modifications, but some want them.
I tend to think that only a cease-fire or an armistice are possible in the current environment. The details over security forces, particularly in the annexed regions are going to take a long time to hammer out in a peace deal.
But I also suspect that if Putin were willing to tolerate peacekeepers to permit a temporary minerals deal, he might eventually tolerate the idea of peacekeepers (say British and Russian) in the annexed areas as part of a lead-up to local voting.
Biden did a monumental planetary disservice in defining this NATO conflict as something that could only be resolved via war. Trump has done a remarkable job of reminding the planet that war is always followed by rebuilding of both buildings and economies.
Donald Trump is flamboyantly dumb ... a habitual liar .... a Populist demagogue who says whatever comes to mind in the moment. There will be no actual mineral deal with Ukraine because Zelensky does not have the authority to make a deal. Russia will NEVER allow US or NATO combat troops inside Ukraine (which is why there is a war going on in Ukraine). Trump is a buffoon ... a low IQ doofus ... he's a Realtor for the love of Pete.
Okay, granted, but the other guy (girl) was much worse.
Exactly.
Kamala couldn't even be bothered to travel to our own border until forced. Biden can't even travel to the bathroom.
Well, Trump ...you can go f*** yourself.
I now wish I had not voted for you.
The next election.....I'm staying home. F*** 'em.
Based on how that meeting went yesterday, in the words of Rooster Cogburn in 'True Grit:'
"Well, that didn't pan out."
Trump: The Cost of Ego
President Trump’s shameful berating President Zelinskyy displayed the cost of ego, of which Mr. Trump has more than a sufficiency. Whatever the merits of his argument, his method betrayed any value therein. Curiously, the Mass Media missed the basic point of the egotistical display.
Mr. Trump violated the most basic rule taught in Diplomacy 101. Only under certain, well-defined circumstances should heads of state meet to negotiate one with the other head to head. Where antagonism exists, as in this case, the danger in such a negotiating venue is that, if no agreement is reached, there is nowhere else to turn. Such negotiating should be held at the level of foreign ministers behind closed doors not in front of televising cameras for all the world to witness, whereby the cameras become the controlling factor. Once the foreign ministers have reached an agreement, the heads of state meet to sign it with all the fanfare of cheap theater.
Alas, Mr. Trump is an egotistical showman. The farce with Zelinskyy plays to his ego. Having Zelinskyy crawl on his belly publicly will delight Mr. Trump no end. Ask yourself, Would George Washington have presented the world with such a display of bare-fisted, naked ego?