In a striking escalation of pressure tactics reminiscent of extractive imperialism, the United States, under the reinstalled administration of Donald Trump, has demanded direct control over a vital segment of Ukraine’s strategic energy infrastructure: the natural gas transit pipeline running from Sudzha in western Russia to Uzhhorod, Ukraine, on the EU-Slovakia border. This conduit, extending approximately 1,200 kilometers, has historically served as one of the most critical arteries for the transportation of Russian gas into Europe and was a major source of transit revenue for Ukraine, especially during the initial years of the full-scale Russian invasion. The demand is reportedly embedded within a revised draft agreement produced by Washington, one that radically expands upon the already sweeping mineral extraction and profit-sharing proposals made in February 2025.
In April 2025, these negotiations between the United States and Ukraine intensified, revealing significant geopolitical tensions and clashing national priorities. The Trump administration’s updated proposal has now sought not only access to but effective control over vast portions of Ukraine’s natural resource sector—including rare earth elements, oil, and gas deposits—as retroactive “compensation” for weapons and economic assistance provided by the prior Biden administration. Particularly contentious is the demand that the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation be granted authority over the critical Sudzha–Uzhhorod gas pipeline. This request is perceived in Kyiv as a blatant overreach into national sovereignty and a dangerous precedent for external economic coercion disguised as strategic partnership.
Ukrainian officials, while still engaged in technical negotiations with U.S. representatives, have described the American position as alarmingly aggressive, maximalist, and structured in a manner that leaves Ukraine little room to maneuver. Volodymyr Landa, a senior economist at Kyiv’s Centre for Economic Strategy, characterized the U.S. posture as “colonial-type” extortion—a form of diplomatic strong-arming aimed at forcing concessions under duress and through the implicit threat of political and military abandonment.
President Volodymyr Zelensky, who had initially expressed openness to a strategic partnership based on joint investment and development of Ukraine’s underutilized mineral wealth, has strongly reiterated his refusal to comply with any deal that lacks clear security guarantees or offers no proportional economic return. Speaking to journalists on April 10th, Zelenskyy emphasized the necessity of equity, affirming that Ukraine would only accept a deal where both nations shared revenue equally and where Ukrainian sovereignty was fully respected. “I am just defending what belongs to Ukraine,” he said, underscoring that modernization and investment must be mutual—not extractive—in nature. The U.S. Treasury later confirmed that “technical talks” remain in progress but declined to elaborate on the pipeline clause or the issue of resource control.
The geopolitical tensions surrounding these talks were inflamed further when Keith Kellogg, U.S. special envoy to Ukraine, made controversial remarks suggesting a future partition of Ukraine along the lines of Cold War-era Berlin. In an interview with The Times, Kellogg appeared to propose dividing Ukraine into spheres of influence, with Russian forces retaining control over occupied eastern territories, while Western powers such as Britain and France might station troops in Kyiv and the west. Although Kellogg later claimed via social media that he was referring only to a “post-ceasefire resiliency force,” his statements sparked outrage in Kyiv, where they were viewed as legitimizing Moscow’s territorial claims and undermining the country’s national integrity.
Meanwhile, Trump’s personal emissary, Steve Witkoff, arrived in St. Petersburg for high-level talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Sources familiar with the meeting indicate that Witkoff floated a proposal in which Ukraine would formally cede four contested provinces to Russia—some of which are still under Kyiv’s control and home to roughly one million Ukrainian citizens. Although neither Washington nor Moscow officially confirmed this plan, its content was widely reported and interpreted as a signal of the Trump administration’s growing willingness to sacrifice Ukrainian territory for the sake of securing a deal with the Kremlin.
These back-channel proposals coincided with heightened military and diplomatic activity. On April 11, at a summit of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, Kyiv’s European and NATO allies announced an unprecedented €21 billion in new military assistance, demonstrating a widening gap between Washington’s increasingly transactional approach and Europe’s enduring commitment to Ukraine’s defense. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius and British Secretary John Healey, who co-chaired the meeting, underscored their support for Ukraine’s territorial integrity and condemned Russian foot-dragging on the proposed 30-day ceasefire, which Ukraine has already accepted.
In parallel, Russia intensified its military aggression. Early on April 12, Kremlin forces conducted a wave of aerial attacks targeting Kyiv and other major urban centers. Ukrainian officials confirmed that three warehouses were destroyed and two civilians injured. Since the U.S. ceasefire proposal on March 11, Russia has reportedly launched over 70 ballistic missiles and more than 2,200 drones, indicating its continued defiance of diplomatic overtures and disregard for civilian life.
Amid the mounting chaos, Zelensky honored the death of Captain Pavlo Ivanov, a 26-year-old F-16 pilot killed during a combat mission. Describing Ivanov as one of the many who “heroically defend the sky,” Zelensky praised Ukraine’s small but resilient air force for their pivotal role in shielding the country from Russian missile and drone barrages, and for supporting ground operations across multiple fronts.
Taken together, these events reveal a dramatic realignment in American foreign policy. Under Trump, the United States appears increasingly focused not on principles of collective security, international law, or democratic solidarity, but rather on leveraging its prior support for geopolitical profit—namely, the acquisition of strategic infrastructure and mineral resources. Ukraine, surrounded by hostile forces and increasingly pressured by what once was its most stalwart ally, finds itself caught between existential warfare and exploitative diplomacy. The negotiations over mineral rights and pipeline control have thus become emblematic of a broader geopolitical contest, one in which the rhetoric of partnership is eclipsed by the logic of imperial acquisition and transactional coercion.
Gros News 
Leave a comment