Zelensky Bluffs on Rare Earths. Putin Offers Trump Cooperation on Exploitation of Those in Russian Territory

The February 24, 2025, meeting at the White House between French President Emmanuel Macron and former US President Donald Trump was aimed at gaining US support for a European peacekeeping mission, which, he said, was supposed to 'stabilize Ukraine' after the end of the conflict. However, this intention conflicts with European statements that still indicate that Ukraine 'must win' and with the rhetoric demonstrated by the trip of European leaders to Kiev on the anniversary of the Russian invasion. In any case, according to confidential sources cited by the Financial Times , Macron returned home with nothing: Trump avoided direct involvement, leaving Europe with a greater burden on its shoulders, with the intention of continuing on the path taken to rapprochement with Russia.

Macron had come to Washington with the desire for Europe to take a more autonomous role in managing Ukrainian security, but to do so it needed the support of the United States. In other words, the desire was explicitly to involve the US in a sort of trap. This had been explicitly said by some media before the summit of the two heads of state.

During the press conference following the meeting, the French president reiterated that France does not accept a total defeat of Kiev, but seeks a peace that does not imply surrender to Moscow. However, his speech proved to be devoid of concrete effects. Trump, consistent with his pragmatic line and firm in his desire to destroy his enemies of the Deep State (who caused and survive by feeding on the war in Ukraine), rejected any request for support for the European initiative.

Trump, in fact, does not consider the Ukrainian conflict as a question of values, but rather as a game to be closed in the quickest and most advantageous way possible. This also depends on the precise understanding he has of its genesis, something that European leaders lack.

More clearly: his main political objective remains the reduction of the power of the globalist elites, which he considers responsible for the artificial prolongation of the conflict, transformed into a colossal machine for the laundering of public money. This is why Trump wants to disengage the United States from the direct management of the conflict, unloading the burden of the crisis on the shoulders of the European Union. His vision of "fairness" translates into a simple message: Washington is no longer willing to bear the financial and military burden of this war.

Rather than support France’s vague and contradictory plan for a stabilization mission – difficult to reconcile with the position taken just months ago, when Paris declared itself ready for direct military intervention – Trump has advanced a proposal that reflects the transactional nature of his foreign policy: Western aid should be compensated by the exploitation of Ukraine’s rare earth deposits.

Trump and his economic approach to conflict

The former American president is focusing on the reorganization of the US apparatus, intervening on the dynamics of corruption that permeate various institutions, including the Pentagon. Furthermore, he has initiated a series of purges within the army and the administration, reducing the presence of figures that he considers an expression of the globalist establishment. On the international front, he has adopted a particularly critical position towards Volodymyr Zelensky, to whom he has reserved direct public attacks, ridiculing his role and leadership ability.

At the same time, the European institutions and EU governments continue their policy of support for Kiev, albeit without a unified strategic vision, mainly because unity cannot be achieved if there is no true or at least reasonable and coherent position.

Thus, Europe finds itself stuck between the need to maintain its military commitment in Ukraine and the growing awareness that Washington intends to exit the conflict quickly and, what's more, without excessive financial losses. In the meantime, the new US government, in a silent dialogue with Moscow, is looking for a way to stop the escalation of the crisis, but it is facing internal resistance from powerful pressure groups, opposed to a diplomatic solution that would compromise their economic and geopolitical interests. For now, everything is limited to vague negotiating discussions.

The Trump administration also appears disoriented by the complexity of the Ukrainian situation. The issue of strategic resources, such as rare metals, is emblematic: if Ukraine has been under US influence for three decades and Western multinationals have already invested massively in the country, why has their extraction not been decisively started? This is a question that strangely no media seems to have asked, but as we will see below: it has its own explanation.

Russia consolidates its position

While Macron was desperately seeking support from Washington, Moscow was consolidating its strategic advantage. The Kremlin reiterated that control over the conquered territories and the neutrality of Ukraine are non-negotiable. On the military level, Russia is winning. Thanks to new alliances and the BRICS, Moscow is planning its role on a global scale.

Trump’s retreat from the conflict reinforces the idea that the West is increasingly contradictory (and therefore divided) and that the Kremlin can dictate the terms of future negotiations for a logical reason: Ukraine lost the war. Europe’s inability to process this concept prevents it from creating a common political line. From Keir Starmer to Olaf Scholz, European leaders hoped that Macron would be able to obtain a commitment from Trump, but the French president returned home without tangible results. France and the United Kingdom seem willing to send troops for a peacekeeping mission, but without American support the initiative risks turning into a high-risk operation, exposing Europe to a direct confrontation with Russia.

According to the Financial Times , the message is unequivocal: “Macron has failed, Europe will have to fend for itself.” NATO, already under pressure, could suffer further blows, while Trump is increasingly inclined to observe the situation from the outside (if he resists internal pressure).

Putin and the long-term strategy