President Donald Trump’s approach to Ukraine is reshaping how the United States engages in foreign conflicts. Rather than providing aid as a moral obligation or a strategic security measure, Trump is pushing for a strictly transactional relationship. His administration has made it clear: if the U.S. is going to continue military support for Ukraine, there must be economic benefits in return. This marks a significant shift from past administrations, which emphasized democracy, security, and countering Russian aggression as primary reasons for backing Ukraine.
With Ukraine struggling on the battlefield and facing an uncertain future, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy appears open to negotiations but is insisting on long-term investment and security guarantees rather than simply handing over resources. However, the timing of negotiations is critical. Zelenskyy has emphasized the importance of meeting with Trump before the U.S. president engages with Vladimir Putin, fearing that discussions between Washington and Moscow could shape Ukraine’s future without its direct involvement.
For years, the U.S. has framed its support for Ukraine as part of a broader mission to defend democracy and counter Russian influence. Trump is rejecting this premise in favor of a mercantilist strategy, where aid is not given freely but rather tied to tangible economic benefits. This shift is evident in Trump’s insistence that Ukraine open its rare earth minerals, titanium, and uranium to American investment in exchange for continued military support.
The U.S. also wants to use Ukraine’s vast underground gas storage facilities for American liquefied natural gas (LNG). This move aligns with Trump’s long-standing energy dominance strategy, which aims to reduce European dependence on Russian gas while boosting U.S. energy exports. While this plan could benefit Ukraine in the short term by securing aid, it also raises concerns about the long-term implications of tying military support to economic exploitation.
This transactional approach fundamentally changes the nature of U.S. support. Previous administrations provided aid to Ukraine based on security principles and a commitment to defending international norms. Trump, in contrast, is treating Ukraine as a business partner rather than an ally in need. His philosophy of “no more blank checks” suggests that if America is going to spend money on Ukraine, it must receive something in return.
Zelenskyy faces an impossible dilemma. His country is in dire need of military aid, yet he must ensure that any deal with Trump does not come at the cost of Ukraine’s long-term sovereignty. His approach has been to offer partnerships rather than outright resource concessions, hoping to attract American investment in Ukrainian industries instead of merely handing over control. However, the urgency of the war puts Ukraine in a weak bargaining position, raising the risk of a deal that benefits the U.S. more than it benefits Ukraine.
One of Zelenskyy’s greatest concerns is that Trump may attempt to strike a deal with Putin before securing U.S. support for Ukraine. He has made it clear that he wants to meet Trump before any U.S.-Russia negotiations, fearing that a settlement without Ukrainian involvement could legitimize Russian territorial gains. If Trump prioritizes a quick resolution over Ukraine’s sovereignty, Zelenskyy’s fears may be well-founded.
There is also the risk that Ukraine could become too dependent on U.S. interests. If Trump’s administration secures mineral rights or control over LNG storage, it could make Ukraine’s economy reliant on American political decisions. That kind of dependence could be dangerous, especially if a future administration shifts its focus away from Ukraine.
Trump’s transactional approach doesn’t just affect Ukraine it has global consequences. The shift in U.S. foreign policy raises several major questions about America’s role in international security and economic diplomacy.
First, there is the impact on NATO and European allies. By treating military aid as a financial transaction, the U.S. risks alienating European partners who have framed their support for Ukraine as a moral and security obligation. This approach could set a precedent where U.S. assistance is contingent on economic concessions, fundamentally altering the way alliances operate.
Then there’s Russia’s strategy. As Moscow continues to make advances on the battlefield, North Korean troops have reportedly joined the fight on Russia’s side. This signals that the war is no longer just a regional conflict, but a proxy battle with international players. If the U.S. is focused primarily on securing economic deals, does that leave room for a broader strategic response to counter Russia’s growing alliances with countries like China, Iran, and North Korea?
There is also an ethical dilemma. While Trump’s approach may be pragmatic, conditioning military aid on economic returns raises serious concerns about profiting from war. Critics argue that it is unethical to demand access to another country’s resources in exchange for support during a humanitarian crisis. However, supporters of Trump’s strategy counter that U.S. taxpayers deserve a return on investment and that America should not be expected to fund foreign wars indefinitely without gaining something in return.
The upcoming Munich Security Conference (Feb. 14-16) will be a crucial moment for shaping U.S.-Ukraine relations. Trump’s special envoy, Keith Kellogg, has been actively working on options for resolving the war, but it remains unclear what those options look like. Some possibilities include:
Zelenskyy is pushing hard for a meeting with Trump before any talks with Putin, knowing that if Ukraine is left out of key negotiations, decisions could be made without their input. The outcome of these discussions could determine Ukraine’s fate not just in the war, but for decades to come.
Trump’s approach could lead to a quicker end to the war, which would save lives and reduce the financial burden on the U.S. However, the risks are significant. If Ukraine is forced into unfavorable economic terms, or if a U.S.-Russia deal undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty, the consequences could be severe.
This strategy reflects a larger shift in U.S. foreign policy. Trump is treating military aid not as a duty or moral obligation, but as a business deal where America expects a financial return. Whether this approach strengthens or weakens global security remains to be seen.
For Ukraine, the stakes couldn’t be higher. If Trump’s administration prioritizes economic gains over strategic alliances, Ukraine could find itself in a weaker position, both economically and diplomatically. Zelenskyy’s challenge is to secure U.S. support without sacrificing Ukraine’s independence. The coming weeks will be critical in shaping the future of the war and the future of U.S. foreign policy itself.