> doesn't want to surrender a chunk of its territory

It is not about a chunk of the territory.

Exactly. For Ukraine, a peace treaty now that allows Russia to regroup and invade again in N years is not really helpful.

Yes, which is why they won't accept it, quite rightly!

Ukraine already surrendered chunk of its territory few years ago. You think this time it will be different and Russia won't try to take Ukraine again once it rebuilds its military potential?

The difference is that in the future (assuming the mineral deal goes through), there would be US citizens operating mineral franchises on Ukrainian territory. So if Russia harmed them in the future, we would be drawn into an actual war.

There were US citizens and businesses in Ukraine last time. Russia will just go around them like they did then. Having some US businesses will provide zero protection.

Assuming that USA would not withdraw their citizens prior to Russian attack. It's a big assumption with current administration.

It will take more than 3 years to get a mining franchise operational.

Assuming mining those minerals would actually make economic and strategic sense for US companies, considering significant long-term investments require stability. And that a significant US workforce would even be required for that. And that the US administration doesn't just make a bargain with Putin about leaving these mining operations alone while doing whatever the fuck else they want.

Name one American who would volunteer to fight because a mine got attacked.

Either we have the spine to defend our allies against unambiguous breaches of international law, or we don't.

> Name one American who would volunteer to fight because a Thai ship got attacked by Yemeni rebels while travelling through an Ethiopian straight to an Egyptian canal.

Apparently, the entire US Navy was okay with that volunteer assignment.

Protecting international shipping from terrorists is radically different.

Could Ukraine maneuver around Trump by instead signing a minerals deal with UK+EU? Better to give the $600b (optimistically) to friendly allies. The problem is UK+EU does not have equivalent defense contractors. US gets what it wants as well, by disconnecting from the conflict.

No of course I don't. Russia will certainly try again. Ukraine is absolutely right to not want to do this! I'm just pointing out what Trump's motivation is.

> Putin is more than happy to take a deal that means they win.

That is not at all evident. Russia's economy is in a terrible spot, and might collapse entirely without the war ('special military operation') effort.

Their economy is in a terrible spot because of the war. International sanctions mean Russia has extreme trouble selling its natural resources or importing necessary products, and what trade it can do it pays a stiff premium for. Its massive defense spending might appear to boost GDP but it's all unproductive and it's driving massive inflation. Then you got oil refineries and other such infrastructure periodically exploding. And true end to the war means an end to all those problems and is the only way for them to avoid their economy collapsing. Of course at the end they'll need to be careful about how they draw down defense spending to avoid recession but they'ed at least be in the drivers seat, as opposed to what they are looking at should the war continue for another 1 to 2 years.