Follow us on social

Diplomacy Watch Donald Trump Putin Zelensky

Diplomacy Watch: Trump and Zelensky announce Minerals deal

Russia, US look to strengthen ties despite shaky peace talks

Analysis | QiOSK

In a major diplomatic development, the long-awaited Ukraine minerals deal, where Ukraine would give the U.S. access to its mineral deposits in exchange for previous wartime U.S. support and post-war Ukraine rebuilding, is set to be signed late next week.

Indeed, Ukraine and the U.S. signed a "memorandum of intent" late Thursday on the deal, which advances the deal but falls short of a final, fully agreed upon one.

“We have a minerals deal which I guess is going to be signed [next] Thursday,” Trump said Thursday at a White House meeting with visiting Italian PM Giorgia Meloni. “And I assume they’re going to live up to the deal.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky also said Thursday that a minerals deal with the U.S. could be finalized imminently.

This came on the heels of comments he made the day before. The basic legal stuff [for a deal] is almost finalized, and then, if everything moves as quickly and constructively, the agreement will bring economic results to both our countries,” Zelensky explained.

State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce, when asked at the daily briefing, said she couldn’t provide more information about the deal. What is known, however, is that Washington has softened its demands for one. In this respect, a source told Agence France-Press that recent drafts of the agreement did not cite previous U.S. military aid to Ukraine as a debt it would need to pay off.

That doesn’t mean Trump is totally happy with Kyiv. “I don’t hold Zelensky responsible but I’m not exactly thrilled with the fact that war started,” Trump said Thursday. “I wouldn’t say he’s done the greatest job.”

Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and President Donald Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff arrived in Paris Thursday for high-level talks with European officials and — previously unannounced — Ukrainian diplomats.

After continued fears of diplomatic shut out, Ukrainian and European officials alike hope the Paris talks steer ongoing war negotiations in their favor. "Everyone wants to get peace. A robust and sustainable peace. The question is about phasing,” French President Emmanuel Macron said.

"What's important is that we have started a process in Paris today that is positive and where the Europeans are associated," a senior adviser to Macron told reporters Thursday.

Other diplomatic efforts remain challenging; participants remain optimistic about prospects for improved U.S.-Russia relations, if not a negotiated political solution to end the conflict altogether.

In an April 14 Fox News interview, Witkoff called his in-person meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin late last week “compelling.” He concluded from it that Russia was open to a “permanent peace,” but admitted that negotiations remained complex.

“There’s security protocols. There’s ‘no NATO,’ ‘NATO,’ article 5…it’s a complicated situation…rooted in some real problematic things happening between the two countries,” he explained.

“We might be on the verge of something that would be very, very important for the world at large,” Witkoff said. “On top of that, I believe there’s a possibility to reshape the Russian-United States relationship through some very compelling commercial opportunities that I think give real stability to the region too.”

Albeit less optimistic than Witkoff about peace prospects, Russian officials likewise expressed support for strengthening U.S.-Russia ties.

“Reviving relations practically from scratch is a very difficult matter, it requires very intense diplomatic and other efforts,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov explained, saying “everything is moving very well” in an interview with Russian journalist Pavel Zarubin.

“But here, we just need to understand how serious the damage was done to bilateral Russian-American relations under the [Biden] administration” Peskov noted. “In reality, the situation is slightly different, it is much more complex, requires more work, requires more time.”

In other Ukraine war news this week:

According to Daily Mail, Russia is building military infrastructure along its border with Finland, which joined NATO after the start of the Ukraine war. “During the war there were about 20,000 soldiers stationed and about four standby brigades, now we see that Russia is building new infrastructure and as soon as they can, more troops in this region,” Lieutenant General Vesa Virtanen, Finland's Deputy Chief of Defense, said about the development.

Virtanen warned that Russia was “deliberately testing NATO's unity” with the infrastructure development, perhaps also testing whether it would trigger Article 5, NATO’s collective defense clause.

According to the Economist, Pentagon officials questioned an unnamed European ally about its continued military assistance to Ukraine, in addition to saying they are privately “fed up” about Europe’s continued Ukraine aid efforts amid the administration’s diplomatic strides toward Moscow.


Two Russian missiles hit the Ukrainian city of Sumy on Sunday, according to CNN, killing at least 35 people and wounding 117 others.

From State Department Press Briefing on April 17

At an April 17 State Department press briefing, State Department Spokesperson Tammy Bruce emphasized the need for a negotiated solution to the Ukraine war — as soon as possible. “President Donald Trump has been clear: this madness has to come to an end, quickly and completely. During his recent visit to NATO. Secretary Rubio also noted that the time for peace is now: not in months or years. It is now.”

Bruce echoed Trump’s belief that the war would not have happened under his watch. “Trump’s vision and demand for an end to the hostilities remains a north star for Secretary Rubio, Ambassador Witkoff, Special Presidential Envoy for Ukraine Keith Kellogg, and so many others who are determined to make clear to everyone around the world that the Russia-Ukraine war would never have happened if President Trump had been president at the time.”


Top Photo Credit: Diplomacy Watch (Khody Akhavi)
Analysis | QiOSK
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.