[Goose]

As I read this, the US-Ukraine negotiations = No Deal.  Europe wields the upper hand.
[Euro News, NYTimes reports]

March 28: 
New draft of US minerals deal revives fears over Ukraine's EU accession
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/...-accession
By giving American companies preferential treatment in Ukraine, the proposed minerals deal runs the risk of contradicting the EU's competition and single market rules, which provide for equal and fair access.
The minerals deal that Kyiv and Washington are currently negotiating will be closely examined in Brussels to determine its compatibility with Ukraine's membership bid, the European Commission has said, as the latest version of the text revives fears it would derail the country's ambitions to join the bloc.  The accession process requires candidate nations to gradually align with EU legislation, including fundamental principles of fair competition and non-discrimination.
"The line has been conveyed such an agreement would need to be looked into from the perspective of the relations between Ukraine and the EU and, notably, in terms of the accession negotiations," Paula Pinho, the Commission's chief spokesperson, said on Friday during a press conference.

1) The bottom line is that Ukraine (Zelensky) values EU accession (distinct from NATO membership) above all else,
even if giving up territory in the East to Russia.  EU is promising more.  Even if faking it.  Geography matters. 

2) Zelensky says he does not consider PRIOR aid provided by USA as a "credit" of value. (!?)
This is a breakdown point, as I see it.  €114 billion estimate, but the amount varies. 

3) Ukraine rejects the 3-2 Board of the Fund "CONTROL" of Mineral Assets.  USA with 3 of 5 board votes = Non-starter. 

4) The EU sees the US deal as blocking EU accession by violating fair competition rules.  The EU wields the upper hand. Killing the deal.
Basically, the EU is vetoing the USA - UKR deal negotiations.  Ukraine wants EU accession more than anything else.

5) Ukraine is still pushing for Security Guarantees -- which is a non-starter for USA, not just Trump,
but US Congress will not approve troops for that ... as a "Back door Article 5".

I am not sure why the (!?) in item 2. AFAIK the aid provided to Ukraine was exactly that, aid. It wasn't announced as lend-lease or with any "strings" attached. It was the same as the aid the US provided to China in WW II, South Korea in the Korean Police Action, Vietnam during our involvement there, Afghanistan, Iraq etc. Israel continues to receive military aid from the US for which we are not compensated.
https://www.state.gov/military-assistance-to-israel/
We also have commercial sales of military equipment both directions between the US and Israel, but that is outside of our outright military assistance.
 
The US provided direct assistance to Ukraine, both civil and military, because the administration determined it was in our national interest to do so. From Ukraine's point of view they were supplying the bodies and we were supplying the weapons. It represented a unity of interests, not a transactional relationship. I can understand, if not support, the decision to make future assistance to Ukraine a transactional activity. However that does not change history and I fully understand Ukraine not accepting the contention they incurred a debt by accepting what we gave them. 

The EU will offer faux Security Guarantees, just like their 2% commitments to NATO.  They cannot field armies and are out of ammo. 
They will massage it and fake it to make UKR feel good.  Zelensky sees EU Accession as the top political victory. 
But, EU is suffering indigestion over possible "Rules of Engagement" with Russia on sending troops into Ukraine. 
"Can the EU troops shoot at anything?"  

What is the role of USA?  Now, I think any USA role would need to flow via NATO, and torquing by EU. 

But, the biggest problem remains that Ukraine can not physically mount another year of war.  
"Standing up to Putin" sounds tough, but what does it mean exactly?  
Ukraine doesn't have another 50,000 troops to throw at the Donbas.  And it would not move the needle.

I am not sure that Ukraine doesn't have/can't raise 50,000 more troops. I would be more concerned that the troops would simply melt away because they felt the situation was hopeless. As far as Russia's intention's go, we should be finding out "soon". The weather in Ukraine is good and the mud is almost all gone. If Russia doesn't mount a significant offensive, it means one of two things. It could mean they too are running out of troops and/or will. It could also mean they expect to get what they want without fighting. We shall see.

Europe doesn't have 50,000 troops for Donbas minefields either

Europe could deploy the 50,000 troops if they had the political will. They don't, so it is moot. If 300,000 troops were needed, they couldn't provide it for at least a year. Even then, it would be unclear where the necessary material could be found. The US could provide the 50,000 troops, but we about 34 years ago made the decision that we were  not going to fight in Ukraine, period. That decision has remained intact.

[Goose]

As I read this, the US-Ukraine negotiations = No Deal.  Europe wields the upper hand.
[Euro News, NYTimes reports]

March 28: 
New draft of US minerals deal revives fears over Ukraine's EU accession
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/...-accession
By giving American companies preferential treatment in Ukraine, the proposed minerals deal runs the risk of contradicting the EU's competition and single market rules, which provide for equal and fair access.
The minerals deal that Kyiv and Washington are currently negotiating will be closely examined in Brussels to determine its compatibility with Ukraine's membership bid, the European Commission has said, as the latest version of the text revives fears it would derail the country's ambitions to join the bloc.  The accession process requires candidate nations to gradually align with EU legislation, including fundamental principles of fair competition and non-discrimination.
"The line has been conveyed such an agreement would need to be looked into from the perspective of the relations between Ukraine and the EU and, notably, in terms of the accession negotiations," Paula Pinho, the Commission's chief spokesperson, said on Friday during a press conference.

1) The bottom line is that Ukraine (Zelensky) values EU accession (distinct from NATO membership) above all else,
even if giving up territory in the East to Russia.  EU is promising more.  Even if faking it.  Geography matters. 

2) Zelensky says he does not consider PRIOR aid provided by USA as a "credit" of value. (!?)
This is a breakdown point, as I see it.  €114 billion estimate, but the amount varies. 

3) Ukraine rejects the 3-2 Board of the Fund "CONTROL" of Mineral Assets.  USA with 3 of 5 board votes = Non-starter. 

4) The EU sees the US deal as blocking EU accession by violating fair competition rules.  The EU wields the upper hand. Killing the deal.
Basically, the EU is vetoing the USA - UKR deal negotiations.  Ukraine wants EU accession more than anything else.

5) Ukraine is still pushing for Security Guarantees -- which is a non-starter for USA, not just Trump,
but US Congress will not approve troops for that ... as a "Back door Article 5".

I am not sure why the (!?) in item 2. AFAIK the aid provided to Ukraine was exactly that, aid. It wasn't announced as lend-lease or with any "strings" attached. It was the same as the aid the US provided to China in WW II, South Korea in the Korean Police Action, Vietnam during our involvement there, Afghanistan, Iraq etc. Israel continues to receive military aid from the US for which we are not compensated.
https://www.state.gov/military-assistance-to-israel/
We also have commercial sales of military equipment both directions between the US and Israel, but that is outside of our outright military assistance.
 
The US provided direct assistance to Ukraine, both civil and military, because the administration determined it was in our national interest to do so. From Ukraine's point of view they were supplying the bodies and we were supplying the weapons. It represented a unity of interests, not a transactional relationship. I can understand, if not support, the decision to make future assistance to Ukraine a transactional activity. However that does not change history and I fully understand Ukraine not accepting the contention they incurred a debt by accepting what we gave them. 

The EU will offer faux Security Guarantees, just like their 2% commitments to NATO.  They cannot field armies and are out of ammo. 
They will massage it and fake it to make UKR feel good.  Zelensky sees EU Accession as the top political victory. 
But, EU is suffering indigestion over possible "Rules of Engagement" with Russia on sending troops into Ukraine. 
"Can the EU troops shoot at anything?"  

What is the role of USA?  Now, I think any USA role would need to flow via NATO, and torquing by EU. 

But, the biggest problem remains that Ukraine can not physically mount another year of war.  
"Standing up to Putin" sounds tough, but what does it mean exactly?  
Ukraine doesn't have another 50,000 troops to throw at the Donbas.  And it would not move the needle.

I am not sure that Ukraine doesn't have/can't raise 50,000 more troops. I would be more concerned that the troops would simply melt away because they felt the situation was hopeless. As far as Russia's intention's go, we should be finding out "soon". The weather in Ukraine is good and the mud is almost all gone. If Russia doesn't mount a significant offensive, it means one of two things. It could mean they too are running out of troops and/or will. It could also mean they expect to get what they want without fighting. We shall see.

Europe doesn't have 50,000 troops for Donbas minefields either

Europe could deploy the 50,000 troops if they had the political will. They don't, so it is moot. If 300,000 troops were needed, they couldn't provide it for at least a year. Even then, it would be unclear where the necessary material could be found. The US could provide the 50,000 troops, but we about 34 years ago made the decision that we were  not going to fight in Ukraine, period. That decision has remained intact.