Trump's silence on loss of Ukraine lithium territory speaks volumes

Last week, Russian military forces seized a valuable lithium field in the Donetsk region of Ukraine, the latest success of Moscow’s grinding summer offensive.

The lithium deposit in question is considered rather small by industry analysts, but is said to be a desirable prize nonetheless due to the concentration and high-quality of its ore. In other words, it is just the kind of asset that the Trump administration seemed eager to exploit when it signed its much heralded minerals agreement with Ukraine earlier this year.

The response from Washington? Crickets. The loss attracted no notable reaction from President Donald Trump or his advisers. Ukraine and its backers, who had hoped that the deal would create an abiding and long-term U.S. interest in Ukraine and its security future, will certainly be disappointed.

Despite receiving almost no attention in the United States, however, the episode offers three important insights into the state of the war and the prospects for peace in the near-term.

First, the setback is a clear reminder that time is not on Ukraine’s side. Pressing on with the war is not likely to improve Kyiv’s battlefield or negotiating position. The Trump administration on Tuesday just ordered a halt on military assistance, the last of the aid packages initiated under the Biden administration will arrive. Ukraine’s army is already running short on air-defense missiles to protect its cities from punishing Russian drone and missile attacks, and the end of U.S. aid could trigger military shortages in other areas.

Add to this concerns about high desertion rates among exhausted Ukrainian soldiers and things aren’t likely to turn around soon for the beleaguered U.S. partner.

There are still voices pushing Ukraine to fight on, arguing that Russia is on the brink of collapse and that with just a little more military assistance from Europe and the United States, Ukraine has a chance at victory. But this is wishful thinking. Putin has staked too much on Ukraine to back down now and believes Russia has the ability to absorb additional pain and more fighting if necessary. Ukraine, on the other hand, continues to steadily lose territory, and with it, valuable resources and economic capacity that could support its reconstruction.

By extending the fighting, Kyiv is gambling away Ukraine’s post-war future. The sooner the war ends, the better the terms of the deal are likely to be for Ukraine.

Second, the non-existent U.S. response is emblematic of the very low ranking Ukraine and its war currently hold on Trump’s list of priorities. When Trump returned to the White House, the biggest fear of Ukraine’s supporters was that he would force Ukraine into an effective surrender, giving Russia the spoils. Despite significant tension between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Trump, manifested in a disastrous Oval Office meeting in late February, this did not happen.

Now, however, Kyiv and its supporters have a new concern: Trump has lost interest in Ukraine almost entirely. Trump was already frustrated with flailing efforts to reach a peace agreement in the three-year old conflict before two weeks of crisis in the Middle East wiped Ukraine off the White House’s radar. Trump skipped his meeting with Zelensky by departing the G-7 conference in Canada early, and, although the two did meet on the sidelines of the NATO summit a week later, Ukraine’s war was noticeably left off the summit’s agenda, in no small part to avoid surfacing disagreements between the United States and NATO allies on the issue. There has been no talk of extending new U.S. military aid packages to Ukraine, and even Ukrainian offers to buy U.S. weapons have been met with limited enthusiasm.

At this point, despite periodic Truth Social posts, Trump seems content to let Ukraine and Russia keep fighting until they come to settlement terms on their own. This is not a bad result for Russia which has momentum on the battlefield or for the United States which has no real strategic interest in Ukraine. But it leaves Kyiv at a disadvantage and is, moreover, exactly the outcome that the minerals deal was supposed to prevent.

The deal’s failure to maintain Trump’s support and interest in Ukraine should not be a surprise. It is a weak agreement with uncertain terms, signed by a president more interested in making deals than sticking to them. But the U.S. non-response should underscore for Kyiv that it is on its own going forward. Empty deals and more pleading will not resurrect U.S. interest and support for Ukraine. Europe can fill some of the gap left by U.S. disengagement, but for the most part, Ukraine’s future security will now be in its own hands.

Finally, Ukraine’s many disadvantages, combined with growing U.S. disinterest, suggest that the timeline for peace now rests largely with Putin. Though Russia’s progress on the battlefield is slow and costly in terms of materiel and human lives, Moscow’s army continues to press forward, capitalizing on weak spots along Ukraine’s lines and steadily gaining valuable territory, including economic and natural resources.

Meanwhile, Russia’s repeated missile and drone strikes on Ukraine’s cities are more confirmation that Putin is not tiring of the war just yet and intends to press his advantage.

There is little that Europe or the United States can do to change this calculus, even if Trump were interested in trying to strongarm Putin into a ceasefire. Additional sanctions are unlikely to force Putin to back down, and limits on Western defense production will constrain what can be offered to Ukraine in terms of additional military aid. Ukraine, itself, has few cards to play. High-risk military gambits by Kyiv, such as Operation Spiderweb, may impose costs on Moscow, but will not be sufficient to soften Putin’s resolve.

But while Putin may be in the driver’s seat right now, he too will be ready to stop fighting at some point, perhaps even when the current offensive runs out of steam later this fall. And though it makes sense for Trump and his advisors to step back from their day-to-day engagement with Ukraine and its war for now, they would be smart to take some low-cost steps to ensure that if and when a window for talks opens, they are ready to take advantage of it.

First, the Trump administration should resume bilateral meetings between U.S. and Russian officials, similar to those held in Riyadh earlier this year. Strengthening this communication channel now will make it easier to hold productive and substantive discussions later on, even if the topics covered over the next few months are superficial only.

Second, Trump should encourage Russia and Ukraine to continue and even increase the frequency of their direct dialogue. Ultimately, any lasting deal will need to have support from the two combatants, so these face-to-face talks will be essential to any effort to reach a peace agreement.

Finally, Washington will need to get Europe on board with a push for peace. This has been hard in the past, with Europe’s leaders acting primarily as an impediment to efforts to end the war. The recent NATO summit, however, showed just how much leverage the current White House still has over a European continent terrified of abandonment. The Trump team should not be afraid to use its upper hand, to compel Europe ahead of time to get behind any peace deal Ukraine, Russia, and the United States agree to.

It attracted little notice, but Russia’s capture of a Ukrainian lithium reserve in the country’s eastern reaches and the Trump team’s muted reaction actually speaks volumes about the state of the Ukraine-Russia war. With Ukraine on the ropes and the United States focused elsewhere, Putin seems in command of the war’s tempo. The near term prospects for peace are slim, but bigger opportunities for peace may lie ahead, especially if Washington sets some of the groundwork now.