Trump walks back ‘dictator’ remark on Zelensky as Ukraine minerals deal takes shape

US President Donald Trump attempted to downplay his previous characterization of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as a “dictator” when questioned about it on Thursday (Feb 27). Speaking during UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer‘s visit to the White House, Trump appeared to distance himself from the remark, responding, “Did I say that? I can’t believe I would say that.”

However, Trump’s comments about Zelensky being a “dictator without elections” were made earlier in response to criticism from the Ukrainian leader over a US-Russia meeting hosted by Saudi Arabia. At the time, Trump warned that Zelensky “better move fast” or risk losing control of his country.

Zelensky, in turn, accused the US president of being caught in a “disinformation bubble” created by Russian propaganda. The escalating tension between the two leaders comes at a critical moment, with Ukraine still relying heavily on US support amid the ongoing war with Russia.

What did Trump say on Truth Social?

Trump reiterated his position in a post on Truth Social, where he expressed frustration over US financial assistance to Ukraine. He referenced Zelensky’s rise to power as a former entertainer, questioning how he managed to persuade the US to provide extensive aid.

“Think of it, a modestly successful comedian, Volodymyr Zelensky, talked the United States of America into spending $350 billion to go into a war that couldn’t be won, that never had to start, but a war that he, without the US and ‘TRUMP,’ will never be able to settle.”

He further criticized Ukraine’s leadership, writing:

“A dictator without elections, Zelensky better move fast or he is not going to have a country left.”

His remarks fueled speculation about how his administration might approach US-Ukraine relations if re-elected, particularly given his past skepticism about continued military aid.

How did world leaders respond to Trump’s remarks?

Trump’s statement on Zelensky prompted swift international reactions, with several leaders reaffirming their support for Ukraine. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer defended Zelensky’s leadership, with Downing Street confirming that Starmer had reassured Zelensky of the UK’s backing.

According to the UK government, Starmer emphasized that Ukraine’s decision to postpone elections due to the ongoing conflict was “perfectly reasonable.” He cited historical precedent, pointing to the UK’s decision to suspend elections during World War II.

Other Western leaders also weighed in, with many reiterating that Ukraine’s suspension of elections was a wartime necessity rather than an indication of authoritarian rule. However, Trump’s remarks underscored ongoing debates in Washington about the future of US-Ukraine relations.

What is the Ukraine minerals deal?

Despite tensions between Trump and Zelensky, both leaders have confirmed that the Ukrainian president will visit the White House on Friday (Feb 28) to sign a Ukraine minerals deal that grants the US access to Ukraine’s vast reserves of rare earth elements.

Trump has positioned the deal as a necessary trade-off, arguing that US support for Ukraine must yield economic benefits. He has insisted that Ukraine’s natural resources should serve as compensation for the billions of dollars in US military and financial assistance provided under former US President Joe Biden’s administration.

Zelensky, while agreeing to the deal, has been careful to frame it as an economic partnership rather than a repayment obligation. He clarified that the revenues generated under the agreement would be allocated to a “reconstruction investment fund” jointly managed by Ukraine and the US. He also asserted that Ukraine would not be a “debtor” to the US for wartime aid.

Does the US offer security guarantees to Ukraine?

One of Ukraine’s key demands in negotiations has been US security guarantees beyond financial and military aid. However, Trump has signaled that such commitments will be limited.

Speaking about the issue, Trump suggested that European nations should assume greater responsibility for Ukraine’s long-term security. He pointed to their geographical proximity to the conflict as a reason for Europe to take the lead in ensuring Ukraine’s stability. His remarks suggest a shift in the US approach, raising questions about how NATO allies will respond to a potential reduction in American security commitments.

What does the Ukraine minerals deal include?

The draft agreement outlines a structured economic framework for US-Ukraine cooperation on rare earth minerals and other natural resources, including oil and gas. A key component of the deal is the establishment of a “reconstruction investment fund” that will finance infrastructure projects and economic recovery efforts in Ukraine.

Under the terms of the agreement, Ukraine will contribute 50% of revenues generated from future state-owned natural resource projects into this fund. The remaining funds will be allocated to domestic economic priorities.

Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal clarified that the agreement will not include existing mineral deposits, facilities, licenses, or royalties. Instead, it will apply only to new projects and developments in sectors such as rare earth minerals, energy, and industrial infrastructure.

The deal also extends beyond mining operations, covering ports, LNG terminals, and other key infrastructure tied to resource extraction and exportation. With Ukraine seeking economic resilience amid ongoing conflict, the agreement represents a significant shift in its strategy for leveraging its natural resources.

What are the implications of the minerals deal?

The Ukraine minerals deal marks a pivotal moment in US-Ukraine economic relations, reflecting a shift towards resource-based cooperation. However, Trump’s skepticism about long-term security guarantees raises concerns about whether US military aid will continue at its current level.

For Ukraine, the deal presents an opportunity to secure post-war economic stability, but it also signals growing pressure to provide tangible economic returns for US support. Meanwhile, Trump’s approach suggests a more transactional US foreign policy, where financial aid is increasingly tied to strategic economic agreements.

As Zelensky prepares to sign the deal, the geopolitical stakes remain high. While the agreement provides a framework for economic collaboration, uncertainty lingers over whether US commitments to Ukraine will shift in the coming years, particularly if Trump’s administration reevaluates US-Ukraine policy after the 2024 election.