Can Zelensky Salvage Anything From his Disastrous Meeting in Trump’s Oval?

World leaders, from the United Kingdom and France, are careful not to ruffle Trump in public. But Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky ignored that strategy, cautioning Trump on dealing with Putin. And Zelensky paid the price for such independence. 

But Zelensky can still protect Ukraine’s future as an independent nation.

Zelensky now understands that he should have let Trump blow his horn and then sign the proposed mineral-rights deal as they had planned. Zelensky called the heated meeting with Trump ‘regrettable’ and posted on X that he would sign the deal. Yes, Trump would have beat his chest and declared he was a mastermind negotiator. 

However, as the agreement is written, the negotiations would not be in the Oval Office; they would happen elsewhere, and Zelensky would have much more leverage to determine the final document’s contents.
 
While the main media outlets focused on this brawl, they didn’t dive into the proposed document that Trump and Zelensky were to sign. It was not a giveaway to American interests and presented Zelensky with significant leverage in negotiating the final agreement. 

Zelensky could use the additional time needed to reach a final agreement to shore up his European financial and military commitments. Zelensky and European leaders know that Trump would walk away from the final deal, blaming Ukraine for the loss if he didn’t like it. In the meantime, Ukraine would continue receiving military assistance and time to stock up supplies. 

Here are six key sections within the Ukraine — US Minerals Agreement that provide Zelensky leverage to achieve an acceptable final agreement, formally identified as the Bilateral Agreement Establishing Terms and Conditions for a Reconstruction Investment Fund.

1. Ukraine’s primary legal obligation is to begin negotiations, not to sign one with the US. It will not be formed if there is no agreement on a more detailed description of the “Reconstruction Investment Fund” activities.
2. Neither Participant, i.e., America or Ukraine, will sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of any portion of its interest in the Fund without the prior written consent of the other Participant. This allows the Ukrainian government to stop any action that does not benefit Ukraine.
3. The Ukrainian government will contribute 50 percent of all revenues earned from the future monetization of all relevant Ukrainian Government-owned natural resource assets to the Fund, as agreed by both Participants. Ukraine has the power of veto over these decisions. The revenues as described do not include the current sources of revenues, which are already part of Ukraine’s general budget revenues. Consequently, Ukraine forfeits future revenues that do not currently exist and are uncertain and a ways off from being available. It is expected to take years to identify the exact locations of the key minerals and extract and transport them.
4. Contributions made to the Fund will be reinvested at least annually in Ukraine to promote the safety, security, and prosperity of Ukraine, to be further defined in the Fund Agreement. If the size or percentage of those contributions is unacceptable to Ukraine, they do not have to sign the agreement.
5. The Government of the United States of America supports Ukraine’s efforts to obtain security guarantees needed to establish lasting peace. Participants will seek to identify any necessary steps to protect mutual investments, as defined in the Fund Agreement. This is the weakest part of the proposal since there is no specific commitment to providing any type of resources. As noted in this proposal, those specifics still need to be defined. If they remain unsatisfactory to Ukraine, then the agreement will not proceed.
6. The Parliament of Ukraine shall ratify the Fund Agreement. This is the most crucial element of the proposal because it allows Zelensky to adjust his negotiations to reflect the needs expressed by the government’s legislative branch. It also provides an opportunity to mobilize the Ukrainian population to support the agreement. It also offers Congressional supporters time to argue for its acceptance so that the decision goes beyond the two presidents’ agreeing.

Zelensky can exploit two of Trump’s weaknesses.
 
First, Trump has a narcissist’s grandiose sense of self (Trump’s Personality Will Deliver a Perilous Second Term — for Everyone) where he knows how to solve problems that no one else can. For instance, he suggested that had he been president, he could have avoided the unnecessary, bloody Civil War through “negotiation.” The American public must see that Trump’s reasoning would have led to the end of the U.S. by allowing the South to succeed. And he is asking for the same for Ukraine.
 
Trump’s second weakness is openly admiring authoritarian governments (Trump is not a Tyrant — he just admires them). After the first 100 days in his first term as president, he described our constitutional checks and balances as “an archaic system … It’s really a bad thing for the country.” Trump wants to replace Zelensky, who became president by a far more significant margin than Trump. He would prefer to negotiate with a Russian-approved Ukrainian president who will ignore the tedium of a democratic process. 
 
Zelensky can highlight these traits without directly attacking Trump. By doing so, it frames a message that Trump’s self-interests do not secure a safe future for Ukraine. If the deal falls apart, Zelensky’s record of cooperation will bolster most European governments and American citizens’ opposition to Trump’s abandoning Ukraine to an authoritarian Russia.