No one could deny the simmering tensions that preceded the meeting. President Trump was reluctant to commit more American resources for continuing the war between Russia and Ukraine. He was eager to disengage from the war and wanted the war to end as early as possible even if that meant leaving Ukraine in a highly disadvantageous position. He also wanted returns for the assistance the US had rendered so far.
On the other hand, President Zelensky was precisely looking for the US commitment on continuing support to Ukraine and a security guarantee to ensure that Russia would not renege on any agreement reached. Knowing Trump’s approach to the issue, Zelensky was ready to offer, as a quid pro quo, the Ukrainian minerals to the US. The question was whether both sides would deal with the situation pragmatically enough to find a solution.The developments were being watched worldwide with great interest. Russia was the most interested party. Even before assuming Presidency, Trump had made his position very clear. Reversing the Biden administration’s stand on the issue, Trump was inclined to cosy up to Russia. So Russia was naturally hoping for Zelensky’s failure to strike a deal.
Trump had been making demands for some time that the European members of NATO should do more to take care of their own security instead of relying on the US. As a further expansion of Russian occupation would be considered by the European NATO members a direct military threat to them, they were keenly watching what Trump would agree to stop that and whether he would indeed wash his hands off NATO initiatives on containing Russian expansion in Europe. The countries in Asia and other parts of the world, particularly India, were eager to know what would come out of the meeting, particularly whether Trump would discard a former ally for economic gains.
The outcome of the meeting was disastrous for everyone involved. The agenda for discussions were mainly the planned minerals agreement and security guarantee. The US proposal stipulated that 50% of Ukraine’s revenues from mineral and natural resources, including rare earth elements, oil, gas, and even some port revenues, would go to the US. Additionally, it required the US companies to hold 50% ownership of Ukraine’s rare earth element deposits.
The draft agreement extended beyond rare earth minerals to encompass a wide array of Ukraine’s resources, such as uranium, lithium, oil, gas, and infrastructure like ports. This broad scope raised concerns about national sovereignty and economic autonomy. Ukraine sought explicit security assurances against future Russian aggression as part of the agreement. The absence of such guarantees in the US proposal was a significant sticking point for Zelensky.
Ukraine viewed the US demands as disproportionately favouring American interests, potentially undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty and control over its resources. President Trump and Vice President JD Vance expressed frustration over what they perceived as Ukraine’s lack of gratitude for US support and reluctance to comply with the proposed terms. This led to a heated exchange, with Trump warning Zelensky about the risks of escalating the conflict. The meeting was abruptly cut short. So was Zelensky’s visit to the US. He left the US on the same day. The biggest embarrassment was the live telecast of the whole episode to the world in the glaring view of the media.
If both sides could agree on some common issues beforehand, the meeting would have ended with a great outcome leaving everyone involved happy. Certainly, that would have been like making an exotic meal of the kind of deep-fried turkey instead of the mundane roasted turkey served at every Thanksgiving dinner.
But there were many things that went wrong with the meeting. Such high-level meetings are usually held after adequate discussions and negotiations between the officials of two sides who would reach agreement in advance on key issues while taking the respective dignitaries on board at the same time. That was totally absent in this case. Both sides knew the positions of the other side and had no clarity as to how much they could concede. If anyone deep-frying a turkey overfills the pot or does not control the oil temperature properly and then lowers a frozen turkey into the hot oil, he would instantly get to witness what a splash of hot oil is or how loudly a frozen turkey explodes in contact of hot oil.
What happened at the meeting was not very different from that. The other cause of the disaster was of course the choice of the venue. It is fine to roast a turkey in the kitchen, but deep-frying a turkey should never be done indoors or on a wooden deck. Even if it is done close to a house or garage and the oil ignites, the fire spreads quickly and can burn down an entire home. In fact, many house fires take place because people fried turkeys too close to flammable materials. Was it really necessary to have the now infamous Trump-Zelensky meeting in front of everyone in the world? If the usual diplomatic practice of exchanging pleasantries in the presence of the media before shifting to closed room for substantive discussions were followed, both sides could have saved themselves from this embarrassment as well as retained some much-needed diplomatic space for making further progress on the key issues.
But the damage has been done. Where does it leave the major players of this diplomatic game as well as the global onlookers? For the time being, an emboldened Russia seems to be the winner of the game that was played between the US and Ukraine to the latter’s disadvantage. The US-Ukraine discord will be seen by Russia as a weakening of the alliance challenging it and might feel encouraged to take more aggressive actions in the region. Ukraine is certainly in a tight situation.
The public spat will definitely result in dwindling the US support for Ukraine in its conflict with Russia. Without the anticipated US assistance or support, Ukraine is likely to face challenge in developing its mineral resources, impacting its economic recovery and defence capabilities. A number of European countries such as France, Germany, UK and others as well as European Union have reaffirmed their support for Ukraine. Collectively, these European leaders have pledged to enhance military aid to Ukraine, with the European Union providing over $50 billion and plans to potentially match the previous year’s €20 billion in military assistance.
Additionally, there are discussions about deploying a European peacekeeping force. These European countries themselves feel very let down by the US’s stand. Even if they were ready to live with reduced presence of the US forces, they were keen to have continuing intelligence cooperation with the US and secure the US guarantees to deter further Russian aggression. They might have to redefine NATO’s role and work out a revised security mechanism if the US really starts withdrawing itself from Europe.
The diplomatic fiasco has not left the US in an enviable position either. The US wanted a significant control of Ukraine’s mineral resources with reduced military and financial commitment from itself. That is not attainable for the time being, unless some mutually acceptable arrangement is worked out later. But its diplomatic isolation in the developed world has begun. It started with the tariff threat to Canada and the desire to annexe Greenland. Now the European countries will be more wary of the US intentions.
Among other global players, China incidentally will have a slight advantage. With European countries more preoccupied with the Russia-Ukraine conflict, they will have less time to plan for containing the global expansion of Chinese influence. Mineral-rich developing nations in Africa and Latin America obviously need to take due note of how the negotiations on sharing mineral resources might be conducted in the future. A country like India, a significant player in some areas with global aspiration, will also have to factor in the new reality of international negotiations.
We have a large volume of trade with the US in goods and services. We have a large diaspora there. For foreign investment and access to some high technologies, we are dependent on the US. But we also need to maintain our diplomatic independence. We have to keep engaging with the US and continue to protect our interest at the same time.
The uncertainty caused by last Friday’s “Thanksgiving dinner” will affect us indirectly. But we ourselves might have to attend a “Thanksgiving dinner” in the future. With the change in “cooking style” in the “Thanksgiving dinners” that are to ensue, we would do better to take guard in anticipation. It is not just the “host” and the “guest” but also the “neighbours” and “onlookers” who suffer the consequences of such a “dinner fiasco”.
—The author, Subrata Bhattacharjee, is former Indian Ambassador to Chile, Serbia, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. The views are personal.
