How Trump Plans to Sacrifice Ukraine to Compete with China

Translated by Valeria D’Alessandro

Despite the harsh words Donald Trump used against Russia during his campaign— threatening Vladmir Putin with new sanctions if an agreement wasn’t reached within “24 hours” of his taking office—the approach adopted by his administration signals a significant shift in direction. On February 12, the new U.S. Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, stated that Ukraine returning to its 2014 border is an “unrealistic objective” that would only “extend the war, causing greater sufferings.” The following 90-minute call between President Trum and Putin has further alarmed Ukraine and European allies, who are concerned about this unilateral openness to negotiations with Russia.

In the following days, Donald Trump stated on Fox News: “And, you know, they may make a deal, they may not make a deal, they may be Russian someday, or they may not be Russian someday, but we’re going to have all this money in there, and I say we’re going to want it back.” This aggressive stance against an allied country, at least for now, has also been documented in a report by The Telegraph, which published a draft agreement dated February 7, 2025. According to the document, the United States would gain near-total control over Ukraine’s raw materials and natural resources –primarily its highly valuable rare earths – in exchange for past and possibly future U.S. support. The terms of this deal appear entirely disproportionate, especially considering that Ukraine, it must be emphasized, is not the aggressor in this conflict. In the same Telegraph article, journalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard highlights that the economic concessions Trump seeks would exceed the reparation imposed on Germany after the Treaty of Versailles.

On several occasions, Donald Trump praised his own negotiations skills. In his autobiography “Trump: The Art of the Deal”, published in 1987, he wrote: “My negotiation style is simple and direct […] I shoot for the stars and then I keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I want.” While this approach may be effective in business, it is far less suited to international relations. If an unhappy business partner can simply walk away from a deal, Ukraine has little choice but to accept U.S. demands –something it seemingly did on February 26.

Despite modification to the agreement before Ukrainian President Zelensky was expected to sign it on February 28, the press conference held in the Oval Office was far from a success—neither for the United States’ reputation nor for Trump’s image as a “skilled negotiator”. What is typically a mere formality instead turned into a grotesque spectacle, widely covered not only by the international press but also–above all—by politically focused social media. During the event, Donald Trump, backed by his vice president, J.D. Vance, harshly criticized the Ukrainian president, sending a clear signal to U.S. allies: America can no longer be trusted. Thus, it was no surprise when Ursula von der Leyen soon after announced an €800 billion plan to rearm Europe.

On the other hand, even if the agreement had been finalized, experts had already pointed out that the U.S. was likely to gain the economic advantages it had hoped for—due to multiple factors. Estimates of Ukraine’s mineral deposits may noy be reliable, as they are based on Soviet-era studies conducted between the 1960s and 1980s. Moreover, extraction costs and timelines are significantly high—not to mention the fact that these so-called “rare earths” are not actually as rare as one might think. In reality, they are termed ‘rare’ not because of their scarcity, but because only a limited number of specialists possess the expertise needed to process them.

Several analysts and journalist are examining this new U.S. approach, offering explanations that range from a nostalgic desire for isolationism to sheer diplomatic incompetence. However, both of these interpretations are rather short-sighted. First, the way the U.S. asserts its influence exhibits hegemonic behavior rather than true isolationism. Second, even if Donald Trump is displaying poor diplomatic skills, he is backed by a well-prepared staff. Meanwhile, the role of China has been somewhat overlooked by the international press, despite its economic advantage in rare earths and its strategic relationship with Moscow.

The People’s Republic of China plays a key role in the global rare earths market, accounting for 70% of global production and dominating the processing and refining as well—possessing expertise that the U.S. lacks. In response to American policies aimed at preventing Chinese microprocessors from entering the U.S. market, the Chinese government has imposed strict export controls on technologies for rare earths extraction. These restrictions affect several countries, including the United States, which remains highly dependent on Chinese rare earths imports. Trump’s interest in Greenland and Ukraine can be easily explained by his administration’s need to reduce this dependency.

Historically, relations between Russia and China have been complex. Feng Yujun, a professor and researcher in Russian studies at Peking University, notes that Russia has often posed a major threat to China during periods of close diplomatic and politic ties. He argues that the Chinese government should be cautious about the growing rapprochement between Washington and Moscow. Sisheng Zhao, a professor at the University of Denver, shares Feng’s concerns, warning that such development could undermine China’s “Anti-Hegemonic United Front” strategy, raising fears in Beijing that it could find itself isolated in its geopolitical rivalry with the United States. And perhaps, this is precisely the main objective of the Trump administration.

Following the chaos in the Oval Office, Trump announced the suspension of humanitarian aid to Ukraine. It seems that Ukraine is merely an economic and diplomatic pawn, to be sacrificed in the name of waging war against Washington’s true adversary: China. Defending Ukraine in the name of protecting the fundamental rights of the West is not a priority for the U.S. Meanwhile, China will have an easier time dealing with countries whose defense depends on the U.S., which is now seen as anything but reliable.

Mondo Internazionale APS - Riproduzione Riservata ® 2025