In recent weeks, a series of reports have emerged suggesting that U.S. President Donald Trump is pushing a controversial plan that would compel Ukraine to cede significant control over its natural resources to Russia, effectively bolstering Vladimir Putin’s energy dominance in the region.
The claims, primarily detailed in an exclusive report by The Telegraph, have ignited debate across political and international circles, raising questions about the implications for Ukraine’s sovereignty and the broader geopolitical landscape.
According to The Telegraph, Trump’s purported strategy involves demanding “huge reparations” from Ukraine, including claims to half of its oil, gas, and hydrocarbon resources, as well as a substantial portion of its metals and infrastructure.
The report suggests that this move is intended to restore Russia’s gas empire, which has been severely disrupted since the onset of the war in Ukraine in 2022. Sources cited by the outlet claim that Trump views this as a means to stabilize relations with Russia while extracting economic concessions from Kyiv.
Adding weight to the narrative, The Washington Post reported on March 25, 2025, that Trump has been vocal in private discussions about leveraging Ukraine’s resources as a bargaining chip in negotiations with Moscow.
The article quotes unnamed aides who allege that Trump believes Ukraine’s reliance on Western aid makes it vulnerable to such demands.
However, the piece notes that these claims remain unverified by official statements from Trump or his team, leaving room for skepticism about the plan’s feasibility.
In contrast, Reuters offered a more cautious take on March 26, 2025, emphasizing that while Trump has historically favored deal-making with Russia, no concrete policy proposal has been publicly unveiled.
The outlet interviewed energy experts who argued that forcing Ukraine to relinquish its resources would face significant legal and logistical hurdles, not to mention fierce resistance from Kyiv and its Western allies.
“Ukraine’s energy sector is a cornerstone of its economy,” said one analyst quoted in the piece. “Any attempt to hand it over to Russia would be seen as a betrayal of the Ukrainian people.”
The BBC, in a March 27, 2025, analysis, framed the alleged plan within Trump’s broader foreign policy approach, which has often prioritized economic leverage over ideological commitments.
The report highlighted how such a move could undermine NATO’s unity, given the alliance’s staunch support for Ukraine against Russian aggression.
It also pointed to the timing—coinciding with ongoing debates over U.S. aid to Ukraine—as a potential motivator for Trump to propose a radical alternative.
Critics, as noted in a New York Times editorial published on March 26, 2025, have condemned the idea as a revival of 19th-century imperial tactics.
The piece argues that “Trump has blown a winning hand” by alienating allies and emboldening Putin, drawing parallels to historical policies of appeasement.
Meanwhile, CNN reported on March 27, 2025, that Ukrainian officials have dismissed the claims as “speculative propaganda,” with a spokesperson for President Volodymyr Zelensky asserting that Kyiv would never agree to terms that compromise its territorial integrity or economic independence.
Posts found on X reflect a mix of outrage and disbelief among users, with some calling the plan a “sellout” of Ukraine, while others question its authenticity, suggesting it may be exaggerated for political effect.
However, without official confirmation, these social media sentiments remain anecdotal rather than definitive evidence.
The controversy underscores a deeper tension in U.S.-Russia-Ukraine relations as of March 27, 2025.
While The Wall Street Journal noted in a March 26, 2025, piece that Trump’s team has yet to respond directly to the allegations, the lack of denial has fueled speculation.
Energy markets, already volatile due to the war, could face further uncertainty if such a plan gains traction, though analysts cited by AP News on March 25, 2025, doubt its immediate viability given the complexities of international law and Ukraine’s ongoing resistance to Russian influence.
