- We The 66
- Posts
- 🌊 How Trump Turned on Zelensky
🌊 How Trump Turned on Zelensky
Plus: What is Zelensky agreeing to give the US?
Did someone forward you this? Subscribe here free!
Once a week over the next month, we are giving away a free year of Roca Premium. To be eligible, you have to be a subscriber or signed up for a free trial. If you already subscribe, you’re automatically entered. If not, enter today by starting a free trial!
By Barratt Dewey
Two weeks ago, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent arrived in Ukraine. Today, President Zelensky is signing an agreement that grants the US access to Ukrainian natural resources.
What happened in between is a matter of debate that helps explain not just how the Trump Administration is approaching Ukraine and Russia, but foreign policy more broadly.

On February 12, Bessent arrived in Kyiv, Ukraine with a mission of getting Zelensky to sign over the rights to $500B of Ukrainian minerals – what President Trump called a fair exchange for American support. But the meeting backfired: Bessent didn’t sign a deal and, days later, Trump lashed out at Zelensky, accusing him of starting the war and calling him “a Dictator without Elections.”
“Zelenskyy better move fast or he is not going to have a Country left,” Trump wrote.
There are two competing narratives as to what happened in Kyiv.
The first was reported by the Wall Street Journal, whose Ukraine correspondent had been briefed by a Republican lawmaker who was briefed by Zelensky. Per that lawmaker, the meeting between Zelensky and Bessent went as follows:
Bessent pushed the paper [mineral rights deal] across the table, demanding that Zelensky sign it, the Ukrainian president told the lawmaker. Zelensky took a quick look and said he would discuss it with his team. Bessent then pushed the paper closer to Zelensky.
“You really need to sign this,” the Treasury secretary said. Zelensky said he was told “people back in Washington” would be very upset if he didn’t. The Ukrainian leader said he took the document but didn’t commit to signing.
To Ukraine supporters, it appeared that Bessent was attempting a mafia-like shakedown of Ukraine.
But days later, Axios reported a different story:
Six administration officials tell Axios that during the past nine days there were five incidents that angered Trump, Vice President Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and [National Security Advisor] Waltz. Taken together, one administration official said, Zelensky "showed how not to do the 'Art of the Deal' " when it came to courting Trump's support.
The incidents were reported by Axios as follows:
Zelensky slept in and was late to his meeting with Bessent;
After indicating he’d accept the deal, Zelensky pivoted and said he couldn’t;
He then publicly rejected the offer at a press conference;
And then publicly criticized Trump’s negotiations with Russia;
And then accused Trump of “[living] in a disinformation space”
Skip to today, and Zelensky is flying to Washington, DC and signing a deal to grant the US access to its mineral wealth.
So was it all a negotiating tactic? And what’s in the final deal?
The rest of this report is for paid subscribers, who fund our journalism. If you start a two-week free trial today, you’ll be automatically entered to win a free year. Once you sign up, you can access all of our articles here!

Editor’s Note
Numerous readers have written in to say they’ve been overwhelmed by the number of stories lately. So here are the four we published earlier this week:
And some reader responses to the DOGE story:
Greg, a consultant, added some color:
Your "solutions" point is slightly off... when consultancies offer solutions, they are typically pre-configured mixes of business practices and enabling tech that are then tailored (sometimes heavily) for a particular application and client entity. Sometimes, it's kind of a joke in government (and industry, too), as they are so heavily modified that actually starting from scratch would be cheaper. However, a judgement overall is hard to justify on whether custom or "tailored" solutions are best... it's procuring one and expecting the other that really inflates program costs.
There are three methods of reducing spend (which DOGE is doing a horrific job of both executing and communicating; I have done this for roughly 35 years): reducing the volume of "units" (person-hours, inventory, etc.) purchased, reducing the cost-per-unit for the purchase as currently specified, or changing the specifications to eliminate unneeded "excess" (i.e., buying something that is overkill for the actual need). There is nothing else.
The biggest, and quickest to address, issue in the US government is how much effort and funding is put into things that NEVER see the light of day. Some of this is unavoidable, and always will be, because certain things are inherently unpredictable, especially in defense. However, lots of this is due to pet projects and/or job justification/security... the more people that get into government, the more they need to generate ideas (great ones or not) that they believe show they are valuable, leading to: more people in government! (and you are correct that the contractors dependent on federal government largesse dwarf their federal colleagues in outright number, salary, and taxpayer expenditure... but some are actually much better at the job than those within government, plus they are easier to "turn off" given they are not employees, unionized, etc.).
Kathy from Colorado wrote:
BRAVO!!!!! Finally-a balanced viewpoint that goes to the heart of the issue. I for one am very grateful that you are diving deep into the culture that holds DC up and has enabled it to become one of the richest metro areas in the country.
During these contentious times, everyone always says “do your own research-don’t rely on traditional media outlets.” And that makes sense. The question is: who can provide us with a balanced, unbiased viewpoint so that we can draw our own conclusions? Well, I have found it with you guys!!! Thank you for all you do to revive true journalism.
And Victoria responded to the prior day’s article on the APA:
I was just reading your morning post (I’m a free subscriber) regarding the distrust of companies/institutions because everyone knows they’re biased. I agree with you! I’m very liberal - F**K TRUMP and ELON - but I am also an engineer by schooling and a lover of science. Science doesn’t pick sides, it shows evidence without opinion. I have to do extensive research on anything I see posted - It’s an exhausting effort, only to met with vile responses from others who barely read the sensationalist headline or who barely understand how to break down a citation or scientific article. Our society has failed. We confuse discussion with arguments, logic with opinion, and humanity with greed. I am heartbroken by where we’re at and have gotten in trouble for pushing back on either side of the extreme. As your one subscriber wrote, people have truly decided to throw out the baby with the bath water. I don’t know what the solution is, but what makes me sadder is, I don’t think the American public cares to hear it. The hateful right side (not regular republicans pre-2020) has won and everyone will suffer, not just those like me who dissented. Hope y’all are doing well and can understand my response, thank you!
Whether you hate Trump or love Trump – and whether you hate the APA or love the APA! – you are welcome here, so long as you don’t want political bias to skew your news coverage.
See you tomorrow.
–Max and Max