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
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

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.