Trump’s Secret Plan to Leverage Ukraine’s Resources in Talks with Russia Unveiled by US Treasury

Cairo: Hani Kamal El-Din

In a revealing interview with journalist Tucker Carlson, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent disclosed that former President Donald Trump had crafted a detailed economic plan involving Ukraine’s natural resources—one that was meant to serve as a strategic tool to pressure Russia into peace negotiations.

The proposed plan, which never came to fruition, was centered around a large-scale economic partnership agreement with Ukraine. According to Bessent, the deal was designed not as a traditional foreign aid package, but as a mutually beneficial investment initiative that would give the United States first access to postwar reconstruction opportunities and Ukraine’s vast resource infrastructure. Trump’s administration believed that such a deal could indirectly motivate Russia to reconsider its stance in the ongoing conflict by demonstrating the West’s long-term commitment to Ukraine—not just militarily, but economically.

“It wasn’t some predatory Chinese-style contract where you surrender ports and mines in exchange for loans you’ll never pay back,” Bessent explained. “This would’ve been a real, strategic economic partnership.”

Economic Diplomacy: A Strategy for Peace

The plan, as described by Bessent, was more than just a financial transaction—it was a calculated move in the realm of economic diplomacy. By turning Ukraine into a long-term strategic investment, Trump hoped to shift the dynamics of the war. Rather than escalating military tensions, the proposal sought to make economic collaboration the centerpiece of a new peace framework.

According to Bessent, Trump intended to secure the agreement first, then present it to the Kremlin as evidence of America’s commitment to Ukraine’s prosperity.

“He would have gone to the Russian leadership and said: ‘We support Ukraine, but through economic strength. That’s your signal to sit down at the table,’” Bessent noted.

The Treasury Secretary believes that such a move would have forced the Russian side to consider negotiations in a more pragmatic, less combative light. However, the plan collapsed before it could be implemented, due to escalating tensions within the U.S. and Ukrainian administrations.

Internal Political Tensions Derail the Agreement

The agreement was originally scheduled to be signed in late February, but was suddenly delayed following a reported dispute between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance. While the details of the disagreement were not fully disclosed, it reportedly caused a significant rift between the two countries, ultimately postponing the deal.

Talks were later resumed, but under much stricter terms imposed by Washington. According to leaked documents and reports from Politico, the revised version of the deal granted the United States extensive privileges:

Right of first refusal for investments in any Ukrainian infrastructure or resource projects
Full control over profits until U.S. investments are recovered
An annual interest rate of 4% on returns
Priority access to Ukrainian resources until repayment of American military aid (initially given as grants)

Ukrainian Officials Privately Voice Outrage

While Kyiv refrained from officially commenting on the new terms, several high-ranking Ukrainian officials privately condemned the deal, describing it as exploitative. According to an anonymous source cited by The Washington Post, the proposal felt like “a lifetime of reparations”.

“It’s as if we lost a war to the U.S., not fought one alongside them,” one official said.

The Financial Times echoed these concerns, with insiders describing the American demands as “unfair” and “borderline economic colonization.”

Trump Issues Warning to Zelensky

In late March, Donald Trump issued a stern public warning to Ukrainian President Zelensky, implying that failure to sign the agreement would lead to serious consequences.

“If he refuses to move forward with the deal, there will be problems—big problems, very big problems,” Trump declared during a televised address.

Observers interpreted the message as an ultimatum designed to push Kyiv into accepting the economic framework—one that could redefine the terms of postwar recovery and foreign control over Ukraine’s national assets.

A Missed Opportunity or a Future Possibility?

Despite the plan’s failure to launch, Bessent maintains that it “can still be revived” under the right conditions. With Trump expected to play a pivotal role in the upcoming election, there’s speculation that the proposal—or a version of it—could resurface as part of a broader geopolitical strategy in 2025.

Critics, however, remain skeptical. Many fear that such deals risk turning Ukraine into a pawn in a global economic chess match, where long-term sovereignty is traded for short-term aid.

Yet for Trump’s supporters, the plan represents a bold, results-driven approach to foreign policy: one that prioritizes U.S. interests, promotes economic leverage over military escalation, and seeks a pragmatic end to a costly war.