Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Russian President Vladimir Putin could talks with President Donald Trump as early as this week. Artem Priakhin/SOPA Images via Reuters Connect
Moscow demands major concessions in Ukraine ceasefire talks
US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin will discuss America’s 30-day ceasefire proposal this week after Ukraine endorsed the plan last Tuesday but Putin torpedoed it with a list of conditions.
What does Russia want? To allay fears that a pause will give Ukraine a chance to rearm itself, Putin is demanding that Ukraine cease all military mobilization and that the West halt arms supplies. Moscow also wants to formally annex the regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia, which Russia occupies but has not managed to fully control – something Ukraine adamantly opposes.
Who else is engaging – or not? UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced Saturday that a growing coalition of nations will back Ukraine in its negotiations with Russia, including offering air and peacekeeping support, as well as seizing frozen Russian assets to keep the pressure on Moscow.
Meanwhile, Trump narrowed the role of US General Keith Kellogg from Special Envoy to Moscow and Ukraine to dealing only with Ukraine, reportedly after the Kremlin claimed Kellogg was too close to Kyiv. In a post on Truth Social, Trump claimed that "General Kellogg, a Highly Respected Military Expert, will deal directly with President (Volodymyr Zelenski), and Ukrainian leadership… He knows them well, and they have a very good working relationship together.” Businessman and US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, who has previously said that Russia was “provoked” into attacking Ukraine, is now considered the key player in the talks with Putin.
What’s happening on the ground? After a vicious drone assault last weekend, Russian forces are now fighting to expel Ukrainian troops from the Kursk region. Ukrainian soldiers there are vowing to “fight to the bitter end” amid evacuations and destruction in border villages.
Russia's President Vladimir Putin addresses commanders as he visits a control center of the Russian armed forces in the course of Russia-Ukraine conflict in the Kursk region, Russia, on March 12, 2025.
With a ceasefire on the table, Putin tells his troops to keep fighting
Russian President Vladimir Putin made a surprise battlefield visit on Wednesday, telling troops in the Kursk region of Russia to “completely destroy” the Ukrainian forces that have occupied parts of the area for nearly seven months.
The visit came as US envoy Steve Witkoff was headed to Moscow to discuss the proposal for a 30-day ceasefire, which was agreed by the US and Ukraine at talks in Saudi Arabia earlier this week.
Ukrainian forces first pushed across the border into Kursk last August in a surprise offensive meant to boost Kyiv’s leverage with Moscow. In recent weeks, Ukraine’s positions there have weakened significantly. On Wednesday, Russia said it had reclaimed the strategic city of Sudzha from Ukrainian forces.
In his remarks, Putin gave no indication of whether Russia is prepared to agree to the ceasefire but stressed that Kursk should be fully liberated “fairly soon.”
On Wednesday, US President Donald Trumpsaid the fate of the ceasefire is “up to Russia now.”Ukraine ceasefire deal now awaits Putin's response
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take on the back of the Riyadh meeting between the Americans and the Ukrainians, a very different reaction to when President Zelensky was visiting the White House just a week and a bit ago. Here we have a Zelensky emissary, senior delegation meeting with Rubio, secretary of State and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, and coming out with a significant improvement in Ukraine's position.
First, an end of the suspension of delivery of US military aid and intelligence provision, which is critical for the Ukrainians being able to continue to defend themselves. And in return, Ukraine and the United States both announcing acceptance of terms for a 30-day, no condition ceasefire, end of the fighting exactly where it is right now. No territory changes, hands, no promises of anything beyond that. No guarantees about NATO, no promises not to join NATO, nothing like that. And now it goes to the Russians. And that is clearly not what the Russians wanted to hear.
Now, Zelensky played the cards he doesn't have much better since leaving the White House, saying he would indeed go ahead and sign a critical minerals deal, writing a letter apologizing to the American president for any misunderstandings when they had that meeting together in the Oval Office. But now, Zelensky is no longer an obstacle from Trump's perspective on the path to peace, he's accepted Trump's terms. I expect the Europeans will come out and support that 30-day cease ceasefire in very short order, and the question is for Putin.
Now, Putin is of course gaining territory. He has momentum, and so he doesn't have an awful lot of interest in accepting an immediate ceasefire right now, especially not with any strings attached to it. I mean, he has all sorts of strings he wants to attach to. It wants to ensure that Zelensky isn't president, wants to make sure that Ukraine can, at no point, ever join NATO, has broader conditions in terms of NATO not expanding, of the Americans pulling troops back from their rotations in Poland, in the Baltic states, all sorts of demands that Putin has. And furthermore, Putin has engaged with the United States, both indirectly, as we saw in Riyadh a couple of weeks ago, as well as directly, in a 90 minute phone call with President Trump. And while Ukraine was a part of those conversations, it wasn't the focus. The focus for Putin was a much broader conversation about realigning the Americans and Russians to work together, work together on broader security issues like the Arctic and on nuclear arms control, get the sanctions off that the United States has imposed against Russia and individual oligarchs, and generally normalized relations. And none of that is, at least as of right now, on the table for Putin.
What is on the table for Putin, right now, is accept a 30-day ceasefire, with the lines of territorial control being exactly where they are, including the occupation of a small amount of Russian territory incursed by the Ukrainians who have been fighting there. And I suspect that Putin really doesn't want to accept that. So if you're Putin, what do you do? Well, one thing you do is you try to see how fast you can actually get a face-to-face with Trump so that you don't just talk about that deal, but you put it in the context of a much broader deal and you keep the Europeans out of it, which of course is essential to any larger deal that the Americans and Russians cut because the Europeans continue to see Russia as their principal adversary, their principal enemy. Will he be successful in doing that?
Well, one open question will be, we just heard from Mike Waltz and Marco Rubio, but what are we hearing from Trump? Is Trump going to completely support everything they just said? Will he endorse this deal with no qualifiers and say that Putin now has to accept it? Because if he does, that gives less wiggle room for Putin. If he doesn't, and he talks about how this is a great opportunity and we want to have a better relationship, then it gives Putin a little bit of time. It also allows him to put conditionality on what, as of the Riyadh meeting, did not have any conditions.
So certainly for those of us following this very closely, a good meeting for the Ukrainians, a relief for the Europeans, that felt like they were about to have their guy in Kyiv thrown under a bus. There's some rehabilitation that's actually happened. And a very open question for Putin who is a tough negotiator and has shown no indication, heretofore, that he's interested in an immediate ceasefire. He is the one that stands to lose the most from accepting the terms as they just came out of Riyadh and it's very hard to imagine that he'll accept them by themselves, as they are. What are the consequences of that? That's what we're going to have to watch, play out.
Ukraine ceasefire talks in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, March 11 2025.
Ukraine, US ceasefire - Russia's move?
Ukraine and the United States on Tuesday jointly announced a proposal fora 30-day ceasefire with Russia, pending approval from the Kremlin.
The deal, brokered during negotiations in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, comes the same day that Ukraine mounted itsbiggest drone attack to date on Moscow, killing at least three people, damaging buildings, and briefly shutting down four major airports. The show of force came after Russia stepped up attacks on Ukraine, following US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance’s shocking shouting match with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office on Feb. 28.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio pointedly addressed Moscow, saying “Ukraine is ready to stop shooting and start talking. And now it’ll be up to them to say yes or no. If they say no, then we’ll unfortunately know what the impediment is to peace here.”
The US also confirmed it willimmediately restore intelligence sharing and military aid with Kyiv, both of which had been suspended last week. A minerals deal between Ukraine and the US will also move forward “as soon as possible.” And in Paris, French President Emmanuel Macronurged 30 nations to begin security planning for Ukraine’s long-term stability.
Eurasia Group and GZERO President Ian Bremmer says he expects “the Europeans will come out and support that 30-day cease ceasefire in very short order.” But Putin’s response is another matter, he says, noting that the Russian leader is likely to try to see how quickly he can get a sit-down with Trump. That way “you don’t just talk about that deal, but you put it in the context of a much broader deal and you keep the Europeans out of it.” For more of Ian's insights on this, click here to watch his latest QuickTake.
In Ukraine’s AI-enabled war against Russia, humans still call the shots
Kateryna Bondar wants you to know that “killer robots” aren’t deployed on the battlefield in Ukraine — at least not yet. Bondar, a fellow with the Wadhwani AI Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, is a former advisor to the government of Ukraine, where she worked on defense and innovation, among other things.
In a new report for CSIS, Bondar seeks to dispel myths about the AI-enabled battlefield in Ukraine’s war against Russia, separating on-the-ground realities from visions of science fiction. Bondar spoke to GZERO’s Scott Nover about Ukraine’s capabilities, its reliance on foreign powers, ethical considerations about autonomous systems, and what’s next for AI in warfare.
This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
Scott Nover: Why did you want to write this report?
Kateryna Bondar: I worked in the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, and have a lot of connections with the Ukrainian military, so I’m pretty familiar with what is happening there. And when I discuss technology and what is happening on the front lines with people there, they’re like, “Come on, we’re so far from real killer robots and AI wars. And when we read all those articles, it’s good that people think that Ukraine is so advanced, but the reality is not like that.” So the actual goal of this report is to objectively evaluate the state of AI in the war. Full autonomy is really far from actual deployment on the battlefield and the front lines. There is autonomy there, but it’s very partial with separate functions like autonomous navigation and automatic target recognition. These pieces of autonomy exist and they’re deployed on the front lines, but they are not fully autonomous systems.
How does Ukraine stack up against Russia technologically?
Ukraine is still more advanced. Before the war, there were a lot of Ukrainian engineers outsourcing for US companies. The Ukrainian talent pool is bigger. The Ukrainian patriotic movement was way bigger than in Russia, which motivated a lot of software engineers to join the army. When I talk to people who track Russian technology development — we both agree that Ukraine is still leading. Of course, it’s a constant race, but, for now, Ukraine is leading in terms of software development. And also what is important is that Ukraine — I hope and I think — finally realized this competitive advantage and they are really pushing on software development and deployment through procurement of AI-enabled drones. When I talk to the Ukrainian military and specifically Ukrainian Unmanned System Forces, a separate branch that they created, they say that they currently conduct about 80% of their strikes with drones, which I think is an impressive number. Drones can replace conventional weapon systems — but not completely. Of course, they need artillery, but it shows that it’s possible, and I think this is something really innovative and impressive, what’s happening on the front line in Ukraine.
You mentioned the West. With tensions bubbling up between Ukraine and the Trump administration, I’m wondering: How self-sufficient is Ukraine?
Ukraine is capable of producing its own drones right now — the supply chain is established. It’s a bit more expensive than buying components from abroad, especially from China, but Ukraine had to deal with this even before the situation with the United States. They were mostly using Chinese components, and China put export control limits on selling components to Ukrainians. That was the main motivation why Ukraine started creating its own supply chain to be able to build its own drones. The only components that Ukraine cannot produce right now by itself are chips and electronics. China is the best for those because no one can compete with Chinese prices, unfortunately. So Silicon Valley and US producers are not very competitive here. But Ukrainians are getting Chinese components and US components, basically anything that they can get and that is cost-efficient. So yeah, Ukraine is moving towards being self-sufficient, but in terms of chips and electronics, they still rely on external components.
When we talk about AI and chips, we’re usually talking about expensive Nvidia GPUs, but for drone warfare you need small, cheap chips, right?
Yes, you don’t need a super sophisticated huge model installed on that small little chip and that small little drone — especially if it’s a kamikaze drone or a bomber. Most of the time it’s a one-way ticket. There’s no point in installing something really sophisticated, cool, and expensive on something that you use once. So, smaller models, simpler models, smaller chips, cheaper chips — that's how you create a kind of balance between efficiency and cost.
We’re far away from killer robots, but what are the current ethical questions that Ukraine is — or should be — grappling with in regard to AI on the battlefield?
I'll be very honest and open with you. Ukraine doesn’t put ethical questions as the first priority, and for this exact reason, they don’t have any regulation limiting defense and military applications of AI because what they currently need is something very efficient that can kill Russians. That’s almost an official position. On the other hand, when we’re talking about the technology, its development, and how much you can rely on it, this is where Ukraine still sees a problem. All branches of the military that I've been talking with — deep strikes, tactical level, everyone — are saying we don’t trust technology yet, so humans have to be in the loop.
Even when they combine different functions, you can install a chip that has a model for target recognition and then another chip with a model that enables the drone to fly autonomously. So basically, this drone can be autonomous. It can find the target and let’s say it identifies the target that makes a decision to strike and to engage it. But they don’t allow this to be fully autonomous because the number of mistakes and false positives is still way too high to trust technology, so the common kind of vision is the human has to be able to intervene and stop whatever it is from striking or executing the mission.
So, there is a common vision — without any formal strategy or document on an official level, no legislation or regulation. There is only a white paper, released by the Minister of Digital Transformation — it doesn’t have any law power, and it’s just kind of them sharing their vision. It says we aim not to limit military AI and we want to comply with international law and regulations, which also has a lot of contradictions. Yeah, we want to be compliant with all international legislation and laws, which don’t exist, and in the meantime, inside the country, we won’t stop anyone from developing autonomous weapons.
“Human-in-the-loop” is often an ethical term, meaning that systems shouldn’t be making decisions of war autonomously. But you’re saying that it’s also a strategic necessity for Ukraine right now.
Yeah, and more like a safety measure because there are cases when the object recognition and classification went wrong and a Ukrainian soldier was classified as a Russian soldier. Nobody was killed, but they saw this mistake and they’re like, “Okay, we cannot delegate these decisions to a machine.” So it can help to classify the objects it sees, but the final decision and final confirmation is still made by a human — just more from a safety standpoint rather than an ethical one.
What does the near future hold for AI in warfare — even before killer robots?
I think the next step is more autonomy: increasing the number of autonomous functions, but still keeping humans in the loop. I’m not even talking about sci-fi swarms of drones. I’m talking about systems being able to make decisions collaboratively and talk to each other. For example, aerial drones and ground systems that can communicate and observe and understand what’s happening and decide how to better execute this mission. Rather than launching thousands of drones and displaying this cool swarm flying in the sky, in practice people are a very limited and expensive resource. And that’s why operations and missions will become less and less manned and humans will be removed from the direct battlefield and they will be replaced with robots. So more autonomy in robots themselves and more communication and decision-making among different unmanned, uncrewed systems — that’s what I would say is the nearest future on the battlefield.
If Trump's foreign policy pushes allies away, can the US go it alone?
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take to kick off your week. Marco Rubio heading to Saudi Arabia to talk with the Ukrainians. That's clearly the most important of a lot of moving parts geopolitically in the world right now. I say that because so much of what the Americans decide to do and not do with the Ukrainians is going to have massive impact on the transatlantic relationship, on NATO, on US-Europe relations, and on the nature of what has been the most important collective security arrangement in the world and is now experiencing crisis. It's very clear that the Ukrainians, as Trump says, lack the cards. And so the outcome is going to be determined largely by countries outside of Ukraine, not just the willingness and the capacity of the Ukrainians themselves to continue to fight. The United States, on the one hand, is pushing the Europeans to do a lot more. A lot more in terms of providing economic support, providing military support, and having a security backstop for a post-ceasefire environment that the Americans are not prepared to participate in.
Now, if all of that happens, and of course that's a big if, but certainly the Europeans are moving in that direction, then the interesting point is the Americans aren't going to determine the outcome. In the sense that the ultimate ceasefire terms will be driven not by the United States, who's basically saying, "We're washing our hands of it." But instead by the Europeans and the Ukrainians, in concert with Russia. And first of all, that's analogous to what's been happening in the Middle East. Everybody remembers that Trump said, "We're going to own Gaza and all the Palestinians are going to leave," and of course, that's not where we're heading. And the eventual outcome will be determined overwhelmingly by the countries that are prepared to spend the actual money and provide the security and figure out the politics. And that means the Arab States, that means Egypt and Jordan, it means Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and it means the potential for blocking by Israel.
That's the environment that we are increasingly going to be seeing on the ground in Ukraine. That the Europeans are going to be doing the driving. The Ukrainians are going to have to align with that and the blocking potentially by Russia. The big difference, of course, is that in the case of Ukraine, the United States is also very interested in doing a deal with Russia over the head of the Ukrainians and the Europeans. There's no equivalent in the Middle East at all. And here, the reason it's so important is because the ability of the Ukrainians to continue to engage in their willingness with the US and Europe together will determine in large part whether a deal between the US and Russia involves a ceasefire with Ukraine or doesn't. If Trump can say, "Hey, the reason we didn't get a deal and the reason they're still fighting is because Ukraine refuses to be a part of it," then a deal with Russia is actually much easier to get to by Trump. Because it involves just re-engagement diplomatically, investment by the US and Russia, joint projects, reopening of arms control conversations, and doesn't involve a Ukraine ceasefire.
Trump has said, "Not only does Ukraine not have cards, but Russia doesn't have cards." Of course, the reality is that if the Russians are willing to do the fighting for a longer period of time, and the Americans don't care and the Europeans can't stand up, then the Russians are the ones with the cards. That is where we are heading. And if the Americans are prepared to do a deal with the Russians irrespective of what happens on the ground in Ukraine, and that is being tested very much over the coming days, that's perhaps the most important outcome of what we see from the US-Ukrainian talks in Saudi Arabia, then the transatlantic relationship is in a lot more trouble than it is right now.
So I think those are the pieces that we're talking about here. It is very clear that the Americans see alliances and see allies as expendable, that it's not that important for the Americans to treat allies with respect. If they're smaller, if they're less powerful, you can do whatever you want. And we saw that with Elon Musk beating up on Poland and the Foreign Minister, Radek Sikorski, someone I've been actually friends with for a very long time, and I think that's not a smart way to conduct business. Poland's been a steadfast ally, they're spending upwards of 4% of their GDP on defense, heading towards 5% going forward. They've housed millions of Ukrainian refugees. They've done far more on the ground in Ukraine per capita than the Americans have on pretty much every front. And also, by the way, there are a lot of Polish Americans that vote, and some of them vote Republican. Far more important than the Ukrainian vote, for example, and that seems to matter too, but maybe not to Elon.
I think that these sorts of insults are unnecessary, and they damage American allies. But I think the Trump administration's perspective is as long as the US is the most powerful country in the world, that America alone is stronger than America with friends, and it's probably the area of greatest geopolitical disagreement that I have with this administration. But we will see how it plays out. I certainly agree that there will be a lot of wins that we will continue to see, because less powerful countries do not want to get into a big fight with the United States. But long-term, I think this is going to play out badly. And I particularly think that's true in the transatlantic relationship where permanent damage is being done irrespective of what happens after Trump. Anyway, a lot to talk about, a lot of moving pieces. We'll talk real soon, and that's it from me.
People stand at the site of an apartment building hit by a Russian missile strike, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, in the town of Dobropillia, Donetsk region, Ukraine, on March 8, 2025.
Putin ramps up attacks as Ukraine flies blind ahead of Riyadh talks
Russian forces bombarded Ukraine for two consecutive nights this weekend, killing over 25 people in Donetsk and Kharkiv. Moscow also retook three towns in Kursk after troops crawled for miles through a gas pipeline and staged a surprise attack.
Why the increased aggression? US President Donald Trump’s recent moves — halting US intelligence sharing, freezing aid, and dressing down Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office — have emboldened Russian President Vladimir Putin. And while peace talks are set to resume in Jeddah this week, the list of American demands has shifted in Russia’s favor. Trump is reportedly pressuring Zelensky to concede territory, hold elections, and step down as leader.
In response to Russia’s latest salvos, Trump did post that he is “strongly considering large scale Banking Sanctions, Sanctions, and Tariffs on Russia until a Cease Fire and FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PEACE IS REACHED.” However, former Trump advisor John Boltoncalled it a “totally hollow” threat, while key Trump advisor Elon Musk has called for additional sanctions not on Russia, but on Ukrainian oligarchs, and suggested that the US walk away from NATO.
What will Europe do? After announcing additional EC defense spending of $870 billion last Thursday,European leaders will meetagain on March 20-21 to discuss next steps. According to European Council President Antonio Costa, this could include pledges of $16 billion more military aid to Ukraine in addition to the $32 billion already committed this year. It’s still far short of the $70 billion given by the US, however, which is now paused.Signs of hope? Zelensky is in Saudi Arabia for a state visit on Monday, and on Tuesday, his team will meet with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz in Riyadh. A US state official says Ukraine is “ready to move forward,” and Rubio and Waltz are optimistic ahead of this week's meetings.
President Donald Trump addresses a joint session of Congress at the US Capitol on March 4, 2025.
Is the Trump revolution off to a good or bad start?
Does Donald Trump’s revolutionary start make the grade?
On Tuesday, America once again celebrated the great presidential tradition called “marking your own homework,” also known as the Joint Session of Congress address. You didn’t need to sit through all 99 minutes of Trump’s peroration to know that he gave himself an A++ on his first six weeks in office.
“We have accomplished more in 43 days than most administrations accomplished in four years, or eight years, and we are just getting started,” Trump said, causing half the room to explode in applause while the other side sat and waved little paper signs of protest.
The thundering braggadocio of the speech came across with all the subtlety of a revving Harley-Davidson on the Vegas Strip, but give Trump this: He promised radical change, and he has overdelivered. Bigly. Too many politicians promise roses and deliver thorns.
Trump is doing what he has always done: go over the top. His biggest win so far has been the southern border, where his policies have brought illegal migration to a crashing halt. Democrats blew that issue and paid the price. With over 100 executive orders and 400 executive actions, public brawls with world leaders, a pivot into the open claws of Vladimir Putin, and the daily grumblings of his imperialist appetite for land expansion, the transition to Trump has been a transformation of Washington. 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue looks more like Fury Road in the “Mad Max” series, complete with a chain-saw-wielding sidekick.
Democrats look helpless, trying to choke down one half-digested policy—cancel USAID, cut off US intelligence to Ukraine, buy Gaza — as another one is jammed down their throats. You could give their entire party a political Heimlich maneuver, and they still wouldn’t be able to catch their breath.
Trump’s Deal Chaos
The rapid-fire, jump-cut scenes of Trump interventions — 25% tariffs on everything from Canada … except energy … and wait … not on cars for a month … or agriculture … or now … BREAKING NEWS today with Trump suspending tariffs for Mexico and Canada on anything that falls under the USMCA, but only until April 2 — might as well come with those photosensitivity warnings you see before shows that include flashing lights: Ladies and gentlemen, the barrage of conflicting policy announcements may cause Democratic seizures.
One thing is certain: The volatility is causing seizures in the markets, which are whipsawing up and down.
But if Trump gets to grade himself, maybe it’s time for a more objective report card. Let’s use two criteria: Trump as a dealmaker and Trump as a manager.
The Platonic ideal of Trump, taken from his ghostwritten book, “The Art of the Deal,” is that he is the greatest dealmaker in history. Want to end the war in Ukraine? Easy-peasy. That should take 24 hours. Well, that deal, whatever it was supposed to be, never materialized.
Trump is now trying to hustle a mineral deal out of Ukraine by shaking down President Volodymyr Zelensky in public, falsely claiming that Ukraine started the war and that Zelensky is the dictator. Trump says that he and his pal Vladimir Putin (“We had to go through the Russian hoax together”) are trying to pin Zelensky down for peace. The president claims the US has given $300 billion in aid to Ukraine, when it is actually $175 billion—and much of that going to US companies. Still, he’s demanding a $500 billion rare earth mineral deal as compensation and the key to a peace deal. “And they shall beat their swords into … Promethium, and their spears into Scandium,” to twist the old biblical saying.
In any case, that deal also fell through after he and Vice President JD Vance berated Zelensky in a stunning public press conference last Friday in the Oval Office. But it is the substance of the deal, not just the politics, that is also in question. Does Ukraine really have rare earth materials that could be worth that kind of money? Is there really a big prize here? Not according to expert Javier Blas, who wrote in Bloomberg that “Ukraine has no significant rare earth deposits other than small scandium mines.” He points out that the US Geological Survey also doesn’t confirm that Ukraine has any rare earth reserves. “Simply put, ‘follow the money’ doesn’t work here,” Blas writes. “At best, the value of all the world’s rare earth production rounds to $15 billion a year … That’s equal to the value of just two days of global oil output. Even if Ukraine had gigantic deposits, they wouldn’t be that valuable in geo-economic terms.”
So, even if Trump gets the mineral deal, what’s it worth? It is a political win at best, but at the expense of ditching US allies in Europe, letting down Ukraine, and handing Putin a massive victory.
Is that a good deal?
Trump’s Tariff-ization
What about tariffs? So far, the tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China have proven to be an economic downer, and now Trump is rolling them back, fudging, and shifting as the trade war escalates. States like Kentucky that export to Canada are getting hurt. Prices are going up. The premier of Ontario is threatening to put 25% tariffs on electricity exports to three northern US states. Is this the deal people wanted?
And even if tariffs do bring back some US jobs in the long run, which is very possible, Trump has made the United States an unreliable trading and security partner. Who wants to sign a trade deal with him now, knowing he could rip it up or change his mind at any moment? What company wants to invest in long-term deals if there is no promise of stability? Do NATO countries still trust that the US would be a backstop? A deal today is gone tomorrow.
Perhaps this is all just the grinding gears of change. It’s only been 45 days, after all. Maybe the radical surgery Trump and Elon Musk are performing on the sclerotic body of the US government is needed and will make things more efficient. But so far, that has not been the case.
For now, inflation is back up, prices are up, allies are fleeing, and the markets are down. And this is just the start. It could get worse.
All this got me thinking about Clayton Christensen, the great thinker I had the chance to interview years ago. Back in 1997, he wrote the seminal book “The Innovator’s Dilemma” about how disruption happens, but he may just as well have been writing about what Trump and Musk are doing domestically and internationally today.
“Many think of management as cutting deals and laying people off and hiring people and buying and selling companies,” Christensen wrote. “That’s not management, that's dealmaking. Management is the opportunity to help people become better people. Practiced that way, it’s a magnificent profession.”
By that measure, we are clearly in the dealmaking phase of the Trump presidency. And the marks on that, so far, are not good. His big win on illegal immigration and Musk’s hacksawing of government must be measured against the chaos around the economy, the tanking markets, and the rise in inflation. Trump’s foreign policy deals have been a calamity for US allies, from the abandonment of Ukraine, the alienation of the EU, and the threats to and tariffs on Canada and Mexico, not to mention the pitch to take over Gaza. Russia is the big winner so far, so if that’s on the scorecard, you get the Cyrillic version of an A. Otlichnyy!
As far as grading the management of the United States? Helping people become better people? The report card on the magnificent profession reads: More work needs to be done. Fast.