he Trump administration’s recent attempts to engage Russian President Vladimir Putin in negotiations to end the war in Ukraine reflect a calculated blend of prioritising economic interests, political pressure and geopolitical repositioning. Central to this strategy is Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, whom Trump has openly criticised, calling him a dictator. This rhetoric serves as a tactical move to pressure Kyiv into compliance. At the heart of the issue lies Ukraine’s vast mineral wealth, which Trump appears keen to leverage for economic and political gains.

The war-ravaged Ukraine possesses approximately five percent of the world’s critical raw materials while occupying only 0.4 percent of the Earth’s surface. The country accounts for seven percent of global titanium production, with reserves capable of sustaining 15 years of global output. In addition, Ukraine holds significant deposits of graphite, nickel and cobalt, with an estimated total resource value of around $1 trillion. Trump is forcing Zelensky to accept a deal that would grant American companies access to these resources. Given the billions of dollars Ukraine has received in military and financial aid over the past three years, Trump argues that Kyiv should reciprocate by opening its mineral wealth to American investment. The terms of such an arrangement will likely benefit US firms more than Ukraine, thus, raising concerns about economic exploitation and the erosion of Ukraine’s sovereignty.

Trump’s approach is transactional and maximalist. It prioritises economic gain over conventional diplomatic engagement. Importantly, his strategy not only seeks to extract resources from Ukraine but also provides a bargaining chip in negotiations with Moscow. By branding Zelensky an authoritarian leader, Trump aims to undermine the Ukrainian president’s global credibility and increase pressure on Kyiv to do a resource-driven economic deal with Washington. This selective application of democratic rhetoric is shocking given Trump’s support in the past for leaders such as Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-Un.

A key component of Trump’s Ukraine strategy is Saudi Arabia, which is acting as an intermediary between Washington and Moscow. By employing Saudi Arabia as a diplomatic backchannel, Trump can engage with Moscow indirectly, hence, allowing for discreet negotiations on disengagement from Ukraine. It seems that the US will recognise Russian control over the Donbas in exchange for security guarantees and potential business deals with the Trump empire. However, if the US agrees to disengage from Ukraine in return for security and economic deals with Putin-controlled Russia, this will mark a major strategic retreat for Washington, which, under President Biden, supported Ukraine both militarily and diplomatically. This shift will validate Russian territorial gains and undermine the principles of national sovereignty and territorial integrity that the US has championed.

Trump’s approach is transactional and maximalist. It prioritises economic gain over conventional diplomatic engagement. Importantly, his strategy not only seeks to extract resources from Ukraine but also serves as a bargaining chip in negotiations with Moscow. By branding Zelensky an authoritarian leader, Trump aims to undermine the Ukrainian president’s global credibility and increase pressure on Kyiv to do a resource-driven economic deal with Washington.

As far as the NATO is concerned, Trump’s repositioning of Ukraine presents a significant challenge. As the US steps back from its commitment to Ukraine, NATO’s European members especially Germany and France will face increasing pressure to strengthen their military capabilities on their own. This will require higher defence spending, enhanced troop deployments and reinforced collective security mechanisms. Such effort could complicate Europe’s political landscape.

Germany, in particular, faces a challenge after the recent electoral outcomes. In the 2025 German federal election, the Christian Democratic Union along with its Bavarian-based sister party, the Christian Social Union, led by Friedrich Merz, secured the largest share of votes (28.6 prercent), allowing Merz to become the next chancellor of Germany. Alarmingly, the far-right Alternative for Germany achieved a significant milestone, capturing 20.8 percent of the vote, its strongest performance to date. Importantly, the Left Party made considerable electoral gains polling 8.8 percent of the votes. Moreover, the voter turnout was notably high, with 82.5 percent of eligible voters casting their ballots. This is the highest participation rate since Germany’s reunification in 1990. This election underscores a significant shift in Germany’s political landscape, with increased support for both far-right and left parties, hence, posing challenges for traditional coalition-building and coordinated governance. It remains to be seen which party the CDU/ CSU makes a collation government with because Merz has just recently sought the support of the AfD for his anti-immigration proposal.

Importantly, the AfD’s second place in the latest elections reflects widespread dissatisfaction with mainstream parties, economic uncertainty and scepticism about NATO’s military commitments if not institutional collapse. This far-right party has been openly critical of Germany’s support for Ukraine and advocates a more conciliatory approach toward Russia. Moreover, the rise of the AfD presents a dual threat. Domestically, it challenges Germany’s democratic traditions by promoting hyper-nationalist and exclusionary policies. Internationally, an AfD-influenced government could disrupt European unity on key security issues, thus, weakening NATO at a time when alliance cohesion is critical in strategic-military terms. If the AfD march continues, it could negatively reshape Germany’s role in European security and global politics in the foreseeable future. Thus, to counter the rise of the far-right parties in Europe, the EU leadership has its work cut out.

To counter the Republican Party and curb the influence of Trumpism, the Democratic Party in the US must overhaul its organisational structure and reflect on its ethos. Empowering non-white working-class communities to take on leadership roles is crucial for building a more inclusive and representative environment. Without such changes, the party’s support for elitist, pro-corporate and pro-war policies will further diminish its electoral prospects.

The writer teaches at the Lahore School of Economics. He can be reached at ejaz.bhatty@gmail.com