Is It Time to Try Something New in Ukraine? Trump's High-Stakes Bet

Is it time to break the old playbook in Ukraine? With billions spent and no end in sight, Trump’s high-stakes mineral deal might offer a fresh path—or a new round of chaos?

The Ukraine-Russia conflict is a decades-long saga of clashing ambitions—Ukraine striving for independence, Russia clinging to influence, and the United States playing a pivotal yet contentious role. To be clear, the history between Ukraine and Russia is incredibly complex, stretching far back centuries before the U.S. even existed. That deep past—consisting of shifting borders, empires, and rivalries—undoubtedly shapes their relationship today. While the deep history is layered and complex, this piece focuses on America's part in the modern saga.

U.S. Involvement Since NATO Expansion

From NATO’s expansion in the 1990s to Donald Trump’s unconventional approach in 2025, this story weaves together history, opposing perspectives, and a pressing question: could a fresh strategy avert a broader war, especially since the U.S. hasn’t clinched a decisive military victory since World War II? Here’s how it unfolded across administrations, why some see U.S. meddling as a spark, and whether Trump’s latest tack—tested by a fiery clash with Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky—might break the deadlock if they can come back together.

Joe Rogan #1880 - Tulsi Gabbard

The tension kicked off in the 1990s when the Soviet Union dissolved, leaving Ukraine independent. Under President Bill Clinton, the U.S. began expanding NATO eastward, welcoming Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic in 1999. Still reeling from its Cold War loss, Russia saw this as a broken promise—claims lingering from verbal assurances from U.S. Secretary of State James Baker in 1990 that NATO wouldn’t grow “one inch to the east," though no treaty backs this up. By 2004, under President George W. Bush, NATO added the Baltic states—Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania—right on Russia’s doorstep, and in 2008, it dangled membership for Ukraine and Georgia. Russia drew a red line, reacting with force in Georgia that year.

Maidan Revolution: Uprising or Coup

The real flashpoint came in 2014 with Ukraine’s Maidan Revolution. Protests erupted after pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych ditched an EU deal for a $15 billion Russian bailout. The U.S. cheered the movement as a democratic awakening, but Russia called it a coup—orchestrated, they say, by the West. A leaked February 2014 phone call between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt fanned the flames: Nuland pushed Arseniy Yatsenyuk as Ukraine’s next leader (“Yats is the guy”) and brushed off EU hesitancy (“Fuck the EU”).

Critics seized on this as proof of U.S. meddling, accusing Washington of handpicking Ukraine’s government to pull it Westward. It’s not like the U.S. has never done it before, but the Obama administration countered that it was merely backing Ukraine’s sovereign choice, not engineering a revolt. Russia, however, annexed Crimea and fueled eastern separatists in retaliation, claiming it was shielding its sphere of influence.

Nuland’s 2013 remarks at the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation—that the U.S. had invested $5 billion in Ukraine’s democracy since 1991—became a lightning rod. Russia pointed to it as evidence of interference, with some alleging the funds directly bankrolled the Maidan protests. That $5 billion spanned decades of aid for democratic institutions, NGOs, and governance—not a direct Maidan slush fund, per public records. Still, the opacity of U.S. aid tracking, a longstanding issue spotlighted by recent oversight critiques, leaves room for debate. Could some of that money, funneled through groups like the National Democratic Institute or USAID-backed civil society projects, have indirectly bolstered the protests? Some argue yes, while others suggest Maidan was a spontaneous Ukrainian movement, not a U.S.-bought revolution, but the lack of transparency and U.S. history of meddling keeps the question alive.

Under Obama, the U.S. kept aid non-lethal—blankets, training, hundreds of millions—post-Crimea, paired with modest sanctions on Russia. His 2009 “reset” with Moscow, championed by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a success for cooperation, aimed to mend ties strained by Bush-era tensions, yielding early wins like the New START treaty. Clinton later called it effective until Vladimir Putin’s 2012 return to the presidency derailed it (Clinton on Reset).

Yet, Obama signaled even softer intent: in a March 2012 hot mic moment before his re-election, he told Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev he’d have “more flexibility” on missile defense after the vote, suggesting a willingness to ease up—until exposure shifted his public stance. The reset crumbled after Putin’s return and the 2014 Ukraine crisis, leading to Obama’s caution to avoid a bigger clash.

Then came Trump in 2017. He approved lethal Javelin missiles—unlike Obama—but froze $391 million in aid in 2019, tied to a call pressuring Zelensky to probe Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, sparking his impeachment. Biden’s administration, starting in 2021, went big, committing nearly $174.2 billion in aid since Russia’s 2022 invasion—over $65 billion in military support alone—escalating assistance but not enough to secure Ukraine’s victory.

Two Sides, Two Stories

Ukraine frames this as a fight for survival. The Maidan was their break from Russia’s orbit, a choice for democracy and Europe, backed by U.S. aid against Russia’s 2014 and 2022 invasions. Russia’s the aggressor, they say—no debate.

Russia sees it differently. NATO’s growth and the Maidan—fueled by U.S. cash and the Nuland call—threatened their security, breaking supposed 1990s pledges. Ukraine is a vital buffer, and its military moves counter Western encroachment. Scholar John Mearsheimer argues the West’s push left Putin “no choice but to react.”

The U.S. stance splits. Leaders call it democracy’s defense—Russia’s invasions are the issue. But 36% of Americans in a 2022 Brookings poll think U.S. actions, like NATO expansion and Maidan support, provoked Russia. The Nuland call is Exhibit A for critics: meddling, not just diplomacy. The Obama administration pushed back, saying it was about Ukraine’s rights, not a power play.

A Missed Peace and Escalation

After Russia’s 2022 invasion, a possible peace deal emerged. Ukrainska Pravda reported in May 2022 that talks in Istanbul that April had Russia retreating to pre-invasion lines—keeping Crimea and Donbas—while Ukraine would nix NATO hopes for Western security guarantees. However, after UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Kyiv visit, sources near Zelensky claimed he urged against signing, saying Putin couldn’t be trusted and that Ukraine could gain the support to fight on. Critics also see this as a lost chance, blaming U.S. and EU pressure. Johnson denies it, insisting no deal was firm, and he backed Ukraine’s resolve.

Trump vs. Past Administrations

Each administration shaped this saga uniquely:

• Clinton: Launched NATO expansion, setting the stage for Russia’s unease.

• Bush: Grew NATO further, faced Russia’s 2008 Georgia pushback, kept Ukraine ties light.

• Obama: Offered non-lethal aid, sanctions post-Crimea, and a “reset” that faded—cautious but criticized as weak.

• Trump (First Term): Sent Javelins but withheld aid in 2019 for leverage, favoring a friendlier Russia stance—like honey over vinegar—despite internal pushback and impeachment.

• Biden: Poured in billions, escalating military aid since 2022, doubling down on Ukraine.

Trump’s Way: Different, Not Cozy

Trump’s style diverges sharply. Unlike Obama’s restraint or Biden’s money printing, he paired lethal aid with a friendlier Russia stance—think honey over vinegar. His 2018 Helsinki rapport with Putin signaled deal-making, not showdowns. In 2025, he’s pitching a mineral deal—U.S. access to Ukraine’s rare earths for economic ties, but there are no security guarantees yet. This clashed with Zelensky in a public Oval Office showdown—not Zelensky’s first U.S. blow-up.

Trump's High-Stakes Mineral Deal

The road to this clash began months earlier. In September 2024, Zelensky floated the mineral idea during a Trump Tower meeting with then-candidate Trump, part of his “Victory Plan” to secure U.S. investment for rebuilding Ukraine. Privately, Zelensky agreed to a framework by late February 2025, with Trump announcing on February 25 that Zelensky would visit to sign a “very big agreement.”

But days before, on February 23, Zelensky publicly rebutted the initial U.S. draft demanding $500 billion in mineral profits, calling it a debt for “generations” without security guarantees. This flip-flop led Trump to brand him a “dictator” on Truth Social, citing Ukraine’s suspended elections under martial law and falsely claiming Zelensky started the war. Zelensky fired back, accusing Trump of swallowing Russian “disinformation” after U.S.-Russia talks in Saudi Arabia excluded Ukraine.

Tensions seemed to ease when Zelensky’s cabinet recommended signing a revised deal on February 26, dropping the $500 billion demand. Trump softened his tone, telling reporters on February 27, “Did I say that? I don’t believe I said that,” when asked about the dictator label, hinting at reconciliation. Yet, the visit unraveled.

A June 2022 NBC report resurfaced of Biden's call with Zelensky to inform him of new aid for Ukraine. Still, Zelensky immediately began making more demands, causing Biden to lose his temper with Zelensky. He advised him to show more gratitude. Critics point to this as evidence that Zelensky has a pattern of feeling entitled to make demands of the U.S.

In the Oval Office, Trump viewed the mineral deal as carrying implied protections—placing non-military Americans in Ukraine to manage rare earth projects, with the U.S. naturally stepping in to protect its citizens, thus deterring Russia—while also offering a chance to recoup aid (claiming $350 billion, though it’s closer to $120-$175 billion since 2022) and invest economically in Ukraine’s future. Zelensky, however, demanded explicit security guarantees, confronting V.P. Vance after he spoke of diplomacy, fearing Russia’s history of ceasefire breaches like Minsk.

To summarize, Trump and Vance accused Zelensky of ingratitude; Trump warned him that he was “gambling with World War III.” Zelensky countered that the U.S., shielded by an ocean, would “feel it in the future.” Trump snapped, “You’re in no position to dictate what we’re going to feel,” ended the meeting, and ejected Zelensky—deal unsigned—saying he could return “when he’s ready for peace.”

UK Visit, EU Summit, and Deal Talk

Unsurprisingly, the Friday clash sent shockwaves. Over the weekend, Zelensky visited the UK, greeted warmly by Prime Minister Keir Starmer. On March 2, an emergency EU summit in London saw leaders like Starmer, France’s Emmanuel Macron, and the EU’s Ursula von der Leyen rally behind Zelensky, pledging a $2.7 billion loan from frozen Russian assets and $2 billion for air defenses. Starmer called it a “once-in-a-generation” moment for European security, doubling down on Ukraine as Trump’s pivot raised fears of U.S. withdrawal. Zelensky met King Charles III, bolstering his diplomatic push.

Reports swirl that EU leaders and the NATO Secretary General, are nudging Zelensky to mend ties with Trump and sign the mineral deal, eyeing it as a way to keep U.S. skin in the game. According to Macron’s Saturday remarks to French media, Zelensky's signaled willingness, but the White House insists on a public apology first—unlikely, given Zelensky’s Fox News interview where he said, “I’m not sure we did something bad.”

Why It’s Not Crazy to Try Something New

Trump’s path hasn’t fully unfolded—his first term hit resistance, and his second’s just begun. But is it wild to rethink this? Not really. The U.S. hasn’t won a clear war since 1945—Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan stalled out. Arming Ukraine and sanctioning Russia hasn’t stopped the fighting; 2022’s peace talks suggest alternatives exist. Trump’s honey-over-vinegar play—economic stakes over military escalation—could tie U.S. interests to Ukraine’s stability, maybe calming Russia. Critics warn it might embolden Putin, and without guarantees, Ukraine’s vulnerable—Russian drones hit hard (267 on February 23, 2025). Yet, if Zelensky signs, it’s a break from the old script.

The Path Forward: Peace or More Chaos?

Zelensky’s in a bind—Ukraine needs aid, but he’s firm on security. Trump’s team touts the deal as a “security shield” sans NATO ties. It’s a high-stakes bet—untested, not absurd—after years of deadlock in a conflict the U.S. has shaped, some say provoked and struggled to resolve. As of today, with Trump weeks in and Zelensky weighing his next move, the outcome teeters between risk and breakthrough.

After decades of U.S. involvement and billions spent, maybe it's time to try a new script. Only time will tell whether Trump's deal-making approach will lead to peace or another chapter of chaos—but at least it's not the same old failed playbook.

From the Archives