The analysis of posts and publications regarding the Agreement that Zelensky and Trump were about to sign shows that not everyone understands what this document is about and why it is being signed. It is a FRAMEWORK agreement! That is, in essence, it is not about the Investment Fund, which is already being criticized or praised by many, but rather about the beginning of a negotiation process for the creation of such a Fund. It is about the intention to establish it and nothing more!
"The governments of Ukraine and the United States of America, with the goal of achieving lasting peace in Ukraine, intend to create an Investment Reconstruction Fund (the Fund), establishing a partnership within the Fund through joint ownership, which will be further defined in the Fund Agreement".
The most important aspects for us will not be in the Agreement at hand, but in the future "Fund Agreement", negotiations on which will begin with the signatures of Zelensky and Trump.
The President of Ukraine openly stated that he was traveling to the United States to get answers from Trump.
"I will ask very directly whether the U.S. will stop its support or not, whether we will be able to buy weapons if they are not provided as aid, whether we can purchase arms directly from the U.S. The third question is whether we can work with frozen assets, for example, to buy weapons or invest in various sectors—such as minerals and Ukraine's reconstruction", - Zelensky said.
According to him, the answers to these questions will determine whether the agreement on minerals will be successful or will "quietly fade away".
In other words, the Agreement that the President of Ukraine was flying to Washington to sign is nothing more than a tool for holding a meeting at which Zelensky hopes to obtain answers to critically important questions. Otherwise, Trump simply would not have agreed to such a meeting, and this opportunity would not have existed.
Only after receiving answers to the aforementioned questions will Zelensky be able to shape Ukraine's policy—regarding minerals, the depth of cooperation with the U.S. in general, and the war.
Once again, this FRAMEWORK Agreement (which I would rather call a "Memorandum", considering all the implications this term has for us) is a tool for drawing the U.S. into a prolonged negotiation process. In other words, it is the creation of a permanent BILATERAL communication channel, which hasn’t existed yet.
Therefore, no illusions are needed: this Agreement does not guarantee us any benefits from the U.S., nor "colonial plundering", nor, even more so, a quick end to the war.
It does not even signify a warming of relations between our governments. Trump "forgot" that he had called Zelensky a "dictator" only because he needs the Agreement, which he has already promoted in the American media as beneficial for the U.S. He simply cannot afford not to sign it—that would be equivalent to a slap from some "semi-successful comedian" Zelensky.
Zelensky, in turn, "brazenly" refused to sign it in any way other than at a personal meeting with the U.S. president (let me remind you—the Treasury Secretary left Kyiv empty-handed). And meeting with a "dictator", let alone signing documents with an "illegitimate president", is absurd. This is precisely why Trump has developed this diplomatic "amnesia". It absolutely does not indicate a change in his attitude toward us.
In essence, his exaggerated self-esteem and vanity became the "hook" on which Kyiv managed to catch "the most brilliant genius". And if it wasn’t Trump’s own team pushing an information campaign in the U.S. media over the past few days about "the great victory of the great President Trump, who secured a historic deal with Ukraine", then Ukraine itself should have done so!
However, there is no reason for illusions: this victory is purely tactical. The meeting between Zelensky and Trump, was supposed to, at best, dispel the "strategic uncertainty" that Trump had introduced regarding U.S. support for Ukraine.
But the strategy of "buying" Trump—embodied both in the Agreement and in the one that will be developed based on the summit’s results—cannot be effective for us, as we are competing with a similar strategy from russia. And putin has more minerals, more money, more authority, more influence, and more of Trump's geopolitical interests focused on russia than on Ukraine.
Essentially, in Trump's current understanding, Ukraine is merely an instrument for advancing his interests in russia and China. Due to our dependence on the U.S., we are not a subject but an object of his policy. He does not see the need to negotiate with us—he believes he can control us. But he cannot control moscow, so he will negotiate with them. At our expense!
And no Macrons or Starmers will change this right now.
The only way out of this situation for us is to urgently diversify our dependencies on Washington, build alliances and blocs with other players, resist Trump’s pressure, and, in general, shift the narrative. Instead of focusing on what we want from the U.S. (as was the case under Biden) or even on what Trump can gain from us (the current strategy), we should emphasize what the U.S. stands to lose if it stops supporting us!
We must identify these risks, CREATE them, and communicate them—through media campaigns in the U.S., including paid information efforts targeting the American public.
Many, especially those in Petro Poroshenko’s orbit, are now pushing the strategy that Ukraine’s fifth president once used. Kyiv’s relationship with Trump’s first administration was also strained, so to improve it, Poroshenko struck a deal—arranged in agreement with and in honor of Trump—to buy coal from Pennsylvania. Given Ukraine’s own coal reserves, this move was heavily criticized at the time. However, by appealing to Trump’s business instincts, Ukraine did manage to secure some degree of loyalty from him. So back in 2017, this strategy actually worked.
But back then, Trump did not have to choose between Ukraine and russia. He maintained good relations with putin, and minor flirtations with Kyiv did not significantly impact that dynamic. Moreover, his interest in russia in 2017 was not as critical as it is now. At that time, his Nobel Peace Prize ambitions, his "winner" reputation, and the issue of moscow’s dependency on China were not hanging in the balance.
Today, Trump essentially has to choose a side between moscow and Kyiv. And, objectively, we have no reason to believe he will choose values over price. Russia can undoubtedly offer far more than Ukraine ever could.
Trump is not skilled at "walking between the raindrops", nor does he see the need to. So as long as putin remains in moscow and Trump sits in Washington, expecting anything positive from the U.S. for Ukraine is naive.
There may be some tactical concessions, diplomatic maneuvering, or attempts at "amicable" economic coercion under the guise of mutual agreement. But strategically and ideologically, Trump is on russia and putin’s side. Unfortunately, this reality must become a cornerstone of our policy for the coming years.
Accordingly, Ukraine has no choice but to strengthen its own internal and geopolitical agency—from defense to self-sufficiency in key industries and even forming its own "version of NATO". This must happen independently of Trump and his agreements with anyone.
By Serhiy Harmash, editor-in-chief of OstroV