As Ukrainian and Russian delegations convene in Istanbul for peace negotiations, the United States stands poised to emerge as the war’s principal beneficiary.
Despite the differing policies and outcomes under Joe Biden and Donald Trump, the turbulent experience of Ukraine’s leadership across both administrations serves as a revealing case study of America’s evolving role in 21st-century geopolitics.
Under President Joe Biden, the United States has managed to draw its biggest rival since the Cold War—Russia—into a trap in Ukraine. While the Kremlin’s military capabilities were put to the test on the battlefield, Russia suffered the loss of approximately 300,000 soldiers and saw thousands of its tanks rendered inoperable. The Wagner rebellion led by Yevgeny Prigozhin further revealed that Putin’s internal consolidation was not as robust as previously assumed.
The economic sanctions imposed under U.S. leadership caused a significant decline in Russia’s energy revenues. In 2023, Russian oil exports dropped by 3.3% compared to the previous year, while natural gas exports via pipelines plummeted by 29.9%. Meanwhile, Europe’s energy deficit opened a massive door for U.S. LNG exports. More than 60% of the LNG the U.S. exported over the past two years went to Europe.
On the other hand, the NATO alliance—whose relevance was questioned during the Trump era—regained strength amid the war. Germany was compelled to increase its defence spending, and with the accession of Finland and Sweden, NATO expanded. The United States once again became the central actor in European security.
Another, perhaps more covert, dimension of Washington’s gains was achieved through military aid. While the assistance provided to Ukraine was announced in dollar terms, a significant portion of it flowed back into the American defence industry. Companies like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman became the primary suppliers of the systems delivered to Ukraine. It has been claimed that much of this aid came from munitions already in the Pentagon’s inventory and due for replenishment. According to a Department of Defence report published in April 2023, 82% of the $25.9 billion allocated by Congress was used to replace the weapons sent. In this way, the U.S. not only depleted outdated stockpiles but also injected fresh resources into its defence sector. Simultaneously, systems like the Javelin, HIMARS, and Patriot served as “live advertisements” in the global arms market.
With the outcome of the November 2024 presidential election and Donald Trump’s return to the Oval Office, U.S. approaches to the Ukraine issue and its associated gains have shifted. Under Trump’s leadership style and policies, Washington appears to be pursuing a narrower, more economically self-interested approach to Ukraine policy.
In 2019, the phone call in which President Trump urged Ukrainian President Zelensky to launch an investigation into Hunter Biden caused a major uproar in U.S. domestic politics and triggered the impeachment process against Trump. In the 2024 election cycle, Zelensky’s growing closeness with the Democratic Party has once again turned Ukraine into a deeply personal issue for Trump. Considering Trump’s tendency to merge personal priorities with foreign policy, it becomes evident that his administration’s approach to Ukraine was shaped not only by strategic considerations but also by domestic political calculations.
Furthermore, Trump’s effort to establish a pragmatic and balancing relationship with Russia—as opposed to a confrontational stance—has effectively downgraded Ukraine’s strategic significance within U.S. foreign policy. The diplomatic tension Zelensky experienced at the White House on February 28 served as a public display of this shift in the hierarchy of priorities.
In this context, a prospective mineral agreement with Ukraine is one of the most important items on the President’s desk. Ukraine is among the countries with the richest deposits of titanium, lithium, graphite, and other rare earth elements.
Of the 34 minerals classified as “critical” by the European Union, 22 are found in Ukraine. Lithium, in particular, plays a key role in the production of electric vehicle batteries, modern weapons systems, and renewable energy technologies. These mineral resources are not only economically valuable but also strategically critical, as they lie at the heart of ongoing technological rivalries.
Consequently, under both the Trump and Biden administrations, U.S.-based energy and mining companies have expanded their investments in Ukraine. The country has become increasingly attractive to Wall Street firms, including BlackRock and JPMorgan. Notably, BlackRock’s partnership with the Ukrainian government in 2023 to lead the Ukraine Reconstruction Fund reveals that financial capital is anticipating post-war profitability—and highlights Washington’s broader ambition to establish hegemonic control over these resources.
Given Elon Musk’s extensive investments in advanced technologies and his growing influence in U.S. strategic circles, the region is also emerging as a point of heightened interest for the incoming administration.
The mineral agreement must also be interpreted within the broader context of U.S.-China rivalry. In recent years, China has positioned itself as the world’s largest supplier of rare earth elements. According to the Geological Investment Group, China controls approximately 75% of the world’s rare earth reserves. The United States, seeking to reduce its dependency on China, is therefore eager to secure an agreement over Ukraine’s mineral resources. In December, China imposed an export ban on certain rare earth minerals destined for the U.S. Furthermore, in response to Trump’s announcement of sweeping tariffs in April, the Chinese government implemented additional export controls on rare earth elements as part of the escalating trade war with the United States.
From Kyiv’s perspective, the agreement is not merely about post-war reconstruction; it is also aimed at leveraging the U.S. presence in the region as a counterbalance to Russia. According to Forbes, approximately 70% of Ukraine’s estimated $14.8 trillion in critical mineral resources are concentrated in the regions of Donetsk, Dnipropetrovsk, and Luhansk. In such a landscape, a sustained U.S. presence becomes strategically significant for all parties involved. Given current Russian control over parts of these regions, any future peace agreement will inevitably raise the question of which country will gain authority over these mineral-rich territories.
Moreover, the situation is likely to test the grey zones of international law, particularly within the framework of Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). Under this provision, the cumulative actions taken by the United States to pressure Ukraine into surrendering control over its mineral wealth could be interpreted as a form of economic or political coercion—thereby rendering the agreement invalid under international law.
In conclusion, while the war in Ukraine is producing bloodshed and destruction on the ground, it has simultaneously transformed into a chessboard upon which global actors are recalibrating their economic and geopolitical positions. The United States has emerged as perhaps the primary beneficiary in this new order. During the Biden administration, NATO was fortified, and Europe was increasingly brought under American influence. Under Trump, despite the risk of conflict, long-term instruments of influence in the fields of energy and finance have been activated.
In this context, the war in Ukraine is not just a geopolitical rupture—it also serves as a testing ground for a new grand hegemonic project.
