In the intricate world of global geopolitics and geostrategy, few meetings carry the weight of the recent encounter between President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine and U.S. President Donald J. Trump. The high-stake meeting held at the White House on Febrary 28, 2025 unveiled the complex interplay of energy strategy, diplomacy, and national security that shapes our contemporary world.

By: Sampe L. Purba

The backdrop to this significant meeting is the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Since 2020, when Ukraine's aspiration to join NATO incited Russia to war, the geopolitical landscape has been in constant flux. Ukraine's strategic position, sharing a border with Russia, has made it a pivotal point in international diplomacy and defense strategies. Over the years, Ukraine has garnered substantial military and financial support from the European Union and NATO countries, further bolstered during Biden's administration. The stakes for Ukraine are not just geopolitical, but also deeply tied to its sovereignty and the preservation of its democracy in the face of Russian aggression.

Zelensky's visit was expected to reinforce continued support from the U.S., a crucial ally in Ukraine's defense against Russian aggression. A key item on the agenda was the signing of a critical mineral cooperation agreement, essential for the energy transition and defense sector. This agreement encompasses vital materials like uranium, lithium, and rare earth elements, which are indispensable for the burgeoning electric vehicle market and military applications, such as radar and communication systems. The partnership aimed to secure a stable supply of these critical minerals, reducing reliance on other global powers and ensuring energy security for the future.

However, the discussions took an unforeseen direction. President Trump and Vice President Vance voiced their discontent, accusing Zelensky of exacerbating the conflict and potentially triggering a global war. Trump's message was unambiguous: Ukraine must not dictate terms to the U.S., particularly when its survival has heavily relied on American support. The quid pro quo was clear − U.S. assistance would require Ukraine to cede control over its critical minerals. This demand highlighted the strategic value the U.S. places on these resources in its broader geopolitical strategy.

Zelensky, defending his nation's plight, highlighted the dire situation on the ground and Ukraine's role as a bulwark of democracy against Russia. Implicit in his argument was the acknowledgment of Ukraine's vast mineral wealth, a crucial bargaining chip in international diplomacy. He stressed that Ukraine's control over its resources was non-negotiable and essential for its national security and economic independence.

The lack of an agreement at the conclusion of the visit underscores the intricate interplay of geostrategy, energy dependence, and national security. Both leaders, adept in their respective political realms, are aware of the stakes. Zelensky, a former actor turned president, has leveraged his country's strategic importance to garner Western support, despite the ensuing energy crisis in Europe due to Russia's gas embargo. Conversely, Trump, a shrewd businessman, navigates the geopolitical landscape with calculated assertiveness, prioritizing U.S. strategic interests. Their clash reflects the broader tension between national sovereignty and global strategic interests.

Geostrategy, diplomacy and energy

Diplomacy is war by other means, a reversal of CV Clausewitz’s famous dictum that “war is a continuation of politics by other means”. Ukraine's abundance of critical minerals presents a significant geopolitical advantage, one that the U.S. is keenly interested in securing. With China dominating the global critical mineral market, concerns within the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), NATO, and U.S. defense circles are mounting. Under Biden's administration, critical minerals have been designated as vital for national security and energy resilience, a stance that transcends party lines. This policy underscores the importance of diversifying supply chains and reducing dependence on any single country for essential resources.

The recent Zelensky-Trump meeting has sparked debate about geopolitics of energy and critical minerals. At the center of the discussion is Ukraine's rich reserves of critical minerals, such as lithium, titanium, zirconium, and graphite. These resources are not only valuable economically, but also strategically significant in the global competition for technological and military superiority.

The U.S. has been striving to secure access to these minerals as part of its efforts to reduce its dependence on China, its top geopolitical adversary, for raw materials. In return, the U.S. is offering military and economic support to Ukraine in its conflict with Russia. However, Ukraine is hesitant to grant the U.S. access to its mineral resources without securing long-term security guarantees and a better deal. This impasse highlights the delicate balance of power and the competing interests at play.

Negotiations between the two countries have been tense, with Ukraine rejecting the U.S.'s initial proposal for a 50 percent stake in its rare earth minerals. Ukraine is seeking a more equitable agreement that addresses its security concerns and provides a fair share of the benefits from its mineral resources. The outcome of these negotiations will have far-reaching implications for both countries and the broader international community.

Zelensky wants better deal. He did not sign the document presented previously by U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, as saying it did not sufficiently provide long-term security protections for Ukraine. One of former Urainian officials told the media that the proposal was downright “colonial”.

The intense and harsh dialogue between Zelensky and Trump is reminiscent of the dead horse theory as Sun Tzu once mentioned and Kissinger elaborated in his Diplomacy book. Both leaders must find a middle ground, a win-win solution that acknowledges Ukraine's wartime exigencies and the U.S.'s strategic imperatives. As Zelensky inches closer to the EU and NATO, Trump's ambivalence towards these alliances complicates the dynamic. His criticism of the Paris Agreement and demands for increased NATO contributions reflect a broader skepticism of multilateral commitments. In a speculative twist, one might ponder a future where U.S. rapprochement with Russia reshapes the geopolitical global landscape.

Conclusion

As the negotiations continue, it is evident that geopolitics of energy and critical minerals will play a crucial role in shaping the global energy landscape. Both the U.S. and Ukraine must navigate a complex web of interests, alliances, and rivalries to find a mutually beneficial solution, highlighting that in politics, there are no eternal friends, only eternal interests. The stakes are high and the outcome will significantly impact the global balance of power and the future of energy security.

As the world navigates the challenges of energy transition, geopolitics of critical minerals will continue to shape the global energy landscape, emphasizing the need for strategic cooperation and diplomatic finesse. The resolution of this conflict will serve as a testament to the delicate balance required in international relations and the importance of safeguarding national interests while fostering global stability.

The writer, Senior researcher at the Center for Strategic Legal and Policy Studies, holds Doctoral degree in Energy Geostrategy from the Indonesian Defense University.