The following is presented as part of The Columbian’s Opinion content, which offers a point of view in order to provoke thought and debate of civic issues. Opinions represent the viewpoint of the author. Unsigned editorials represent the consensus opinion of The Columbian’s editorial board, which operates independently of the news department.
I’ll concede that I’ve never read “The Art of the Deal,” nor have I done much deal-making myself. In fact, almost none. But isn’t “deal” just another word for “compromise”? Doesn’t “deal” describe the middle ground that two parties with conflicting interests somehow hammer out for their mutual benefit?
If this is an accurate description of a deal, what hope was there that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s Feb. 28 trip to the White House would result in the achievement of a mutually accommodative middle ground?
To review: President Donald Trump claims that Ukraine owes the U.S. at least $350 billion in repayment for its support during its ongoing war with Russia. The proposed deal would have allowed U.S. access to Ukraine’s substantial reserves of rare earth minerals and other resources for a profit of as much as $500 billion.
But from Ukraine’s perspective, the numbers are off: $500 billion to repay $350 billion, a figure that Trump’s persistently exaggerates by a factor of three. (The numbers are slippery, but according to sources that track such things, the U.S. contribution is around $125 billion.)
Zelenskyy is understandably reluctant to accept a precedent that suggests an obligation to repay the support provided by the European Union and other countries. Furthermore, the proposed deal doesn’t take into account the blood and treasure that Ukraine has already expended in defense of Western values.
Nor does the deal consider Ukraine’s essential right to its own mineral resources or how crucial they will be to the rebuilding of Ukraine, should it survive the war. In short, the Trump side of the deal demands a lot. And what does Ukraine get in return? Nothing.
Thus the meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy that culminated in an unseemly episode in the Oval Office never really had much prospect for success, which may help explain why it all fell apart so suddenly.
The responsibility for shrouding an indecorous rift with an ally from public view is Trump’s; he failed in that duty. And Zelenskyy’s suggestion of the obvious fact that Putin’s appetite for hegemony is far from satisfied provoked the public berating by Vice President JD Vance and Trump for Zelenskyy’s failure to show sufficient gratitude and respect. This is not the behavior of people who actually want a deal.
So the “deal” never had much chance. Trump’s proposal was probably no more realistic than his fantasy of turning Gaza into a Mediterranean luxury resort. And how did Trump sour on an idea that must have seemed originally like a good one?
Indulge a little speculation: On Feb. 12, Trump had a 90-minute phone call with Putin. Reportedly they talked about many things, including AI, the Middle East, energy and other subjects. Here’s the speculative part: Trump and Putin talked about Ukraine, as well. It’s nearly impossible to believe that Ukraine’s significant rare earth minerals and energy resources didn’t come up in the conversation. These are the sorts of things that interest men such as Trump and Putin.
I don’t know if Trump is really playing five-dimensional chess as some of his most craven lickspittles have maintained, but I give him credit for thinking ahead when money is involved. And nothing blows up a pretty good deal quicker than the offer of a better one down the road.
Morning Briefing Newsletter
Get a rundown of the latest local and regional news every Mon-Fri morning.
