Hassan Beheshtipour, in an interview with the Strategic Council on the Foreign Relations website, pointed to the agreement between the U.S. and Ukraine granting America a 50% share of profits from Ukrainian mineral sales, stating: “On the surface, this agreement shows that Trump has finally achieved his goal of recouping the costs the U.S. incurred in the Ukraine war. Moreover, Ukraine’s mines are exceptionally rich and unique, and their minerals are essential for various technologies needed by the U.S.”

He added: “As soon as the U.S. secured this agreement, it altered its position toward Russia, no longer insisting as strongly as before that the occupied regions under Russian control could remain in its hands. Thus, the U.S. was never truly pursuing peace from the outset but was seeking its share of benefits, with little regard for Ukraine’s territorial integrity or its NATO membership debate.”

This international affairs expert noted that Trump had claimed he would end the Russia-Ukraine war in a single day, yet over a hundred days into his presidency, he has achieved no success in this regard. “His actions and performance cast doubt on the validity of his claims. He couldn’t even broker a temporary ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia.”

Regarding the Trump administration’s approach to ending mediation between Russia and Ukraine after the recent mineral agreement, he said: “Trump’s primary goal was to extract financial and economic gains from the Ukraine war. Interestingly, he is pursuing similar objectives with Russia, believing closer ties with Russia would harm China. Trump plans to ease sanctions against Russia and engage in trade and economic cooperation with Moscow to counter China.”

When asked whether the U.S.-Ukraine mineral agreement would lead to productive peace negotiations, Beheshtipour emphasized: “In practice, Trump has failed to achieve the desired outcome from the Ukraine peace talks. While there is now a perception that a new consensus or solution may emerge, reaching an agreement seems unlikely given the current trajectory. Both sides remain highly inflexible in their positions. Additionally, with the dismissal of the U.S. National Security Advisor and ongoing disputes between the Pentagon and the State Department, Trump may be forced to reassess the existing processes. As a result, Russia-Ukraine negotiations mediated by the U.S. are expected to be suspended for some time.”

On the issue of formally ceding Ukraine’s occupied territories to Russia, the international affairs expert stated: “No Ukrainian president would dare to hand over occupied territories to anyone. Even Zelensky is unlikely to agree to this for the sake of a ceasefire while he remains in power.”

He continued: “Perhaps if the Russian side accepts a temporary ceasefire, it could pave the way for new elections in Ukraine under new slogans, where the issue of territorial concessions might be raised. However, given the current deadlock, one option that wouldn’t violate Ukraine’s sovereignty would be granting autonomy to these regions. Forcibly splitting these territories could lead to the formation of resistance groups fighting for their liberation, creating a lingering problem.”

When asked whether the U.S.-Ukraine mineral agreement would lead to the resumption of American financial, political, and military aid to Ukraine in its conflict with Russia, Beheshtipour remarked: “It’s unlikely that the U.S. will stop aiding Ukraine, as without American support, Ukraine would face serious difficulties. Thus, this agreement provides a solid foundation for continued U.S. assistance to Ukraine, even if not at previous maximum levels, but aid will most likely persist.”