Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the U.S. – then led by Joe Biden – was one of several countries which provided military, humanitarian, and financial aid to Ukraine in addition to military intelligence.

But much of this hangs in the balance in the wake of the Oval Office meeting, in which President Trump – long noted for his closeness to Russian leader Vladimir Putin – accused Zelensky of not quite being sufficiently grateful for U.S. support, and told him he was “gambling with World War Three.”

Vance followed by asking, “Have you said ‘thank you’ once this entire meeting? No.”

Departing the White House, Zelensky went to meet with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in London for a summit there on 2 March to discuss how European nations – alongside Canada – could contribute to Ukraine’s defence during the war.

But questions remain: What this support will look like long term, how these countries might configure themselves around the U.S. if it cuts off support to Ukraine – and how that country might avoid such a consequence.

Making things right with Washington certainly seems to be on Zelensky’s agenda: A few days after his confrontation with Trump and Vance, he used social media platform X to express regret about how things had gone, and underline his commitment to diplomatic engagement around the war.

“Our meeting in Washington… did not go the way it was supposed to be,” he wrote. “It is regrettable it happened this way. It is time to make things right. We would like future cooperation and communication to be constructive.”

Zelensky added Ukraine was “ready to come to the negotiating table as soon as possible to bring lasting peace closer,” stating he’s willing to work under Trump to secure this.

Crucially, he said he was still willing to sign a deal with the United States for the proposed development of Ukrainian critical minerals, which had been on the agenda of his meeting at the White House the previous week.

It is not yet clear whether these overtures would be enough to overturn Trump’s suspension of all aid to Ukraine, nor a more recent announcement that claimed the sharing of military intelligence was also on hold.

The latter was announced by National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and followed by comments from CIA Director John Radcliffe on what Zelensky needed to do to reverse the policy.

Radcliffe claimed Trump “had a real question about whether President Zelensky was committed to the peace process, and he said, ‘Let’s pause, I want to give you a chance to think about that.'”

One of Trump’s major claims amid these tensions is that the United States has taken on an “unfair burden” – compared to European countries in particular – when it comes to providing support to Ukraine.

And if analysis is confined to military spending alone, this is certainly the case.

According to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, a Germany-based research body scrutinising global issues, the U.S. contribution to military aid in the past three years is the equivalent of €64 billion, compared to €62 billion from European donors.

However, the trend is reversed when it comes to financial and humanitarian aid, with European sources allocating €70 billion to the US’ €50 billion. This also means the European contribution is higher overall.

Indeed, in a news report published as recently as February 14, the Kiel Institute argued “European donors have been the main source of aid to Ukraine since 2022, especially when it comes to financial and humanitarian aid.”

Altogether, it estimated Ukraine has received €267 billion of aid in the past three years, amounting to €80 billion a year. Of that, 49% was defined as military aid, 44% was financial support, 7% was humanitarian aid.

The Kiel Institute also suggested Trump’s election would be likely to keep U.S. contributions behind those of Europe after being overtaken by the latter in mid-2023, with European governments under pressure to step up their support initiatives.

Also noted was an increasing trend of collaboration between European nations for the provision of military weaponry, including the U.K.-led International Fund for Ukraine which combines contributions from multiple countries to buy military equipment for Ukraine, with a total allocation of €1.6 billion.

The majority of military aid across all donors had been sourced from existing arsenals, but more recently, weapons came to be sourced direct from industry.

While Trump’s decision to cut off military funding and the provision of intelligence to Ukraine present a significant setback for the eastern European country, it appears several of its other allies are intent on formulating a plan for its defense even beyond a peace deal.

At the March 2 summit – called by Starmer – the leaders of 18 countries, mostly in Europe, developed a four-point plan to reassure Ukraine of their support.

These included a pledge to continue providing military aid to the country, alongside economic pressure on Russia; a call for Ukrainian sovereignty to be recognised in any future peace talks; calls to boost the country’s defence capabilities even after peace was reached, to stave off a possible invasion; and agreement to form a ‘coalition of the willing’ to secure long term peace for Ukraine.

After the summit, which had been called just a week earlier, Starmer underlined the significance of this moment, and the decisions needing to be made, saying: “We are at a crossroads in history.”

While stating in the future, Europe might have to do the heavy lifting when it came to support of Ukraine – something which in the British case could involve “boots on the ground and planes in the air,” he acknowledged any agreement would need support from the U.S. – and has to include Russia.

Additional U.K. support was announced after the summit, comprising a £1.6 billion package of export finance to buy more than 5,000 air defence missiles, which would be built in Belfast.

This will add to an already announced loan of £2.2bn loan for more military aid, which has been backed by profits taken from frozen Russian assets.

With French President Emmanuel Macron, Starmer has also been progressing diplomatic efforts to secure peace, with both leaders separately telephoning Zelensky and Trump to finalise a deal in coming weeks.

No matter what happens next though, it will be a busy, and tense, few weeks ahead.

Join the discussion: See what’s trending right now on Australia’s largest stock forum and be part of the conversations that move the markets.

The material provided in this article is for information only and should not be treated as investment advice. Viewers are encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with a certified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. For full disclaimer information, please click here.

In the wake of the invasion, uncertainty and tension saw the latter push up to a price of $120 per barrel, and this period was followed by a spate of sanctions against Russia – chiefly targeting oil, gas and coal – from the United States, Canada, the European Union and other Western entities.

(This tendency has continued too, with the EU this week signing off on its 16th sanction package, which includes bans on the provision of services and technology that could facilitate completion of Russian LNG or crude oil products.)

In a general sense, the war prompted conversations about the need for countries to ensure their supply chains are both strong and diversified.

This is then augmented by the headwinds from recent U.S. tariff policies.

But Donald Trump’s recent interventions in international diplomacy concerning the war have introduced another topic into the chat: Ukraine’s richness in critical minerals, which the U.S. President wants to get his hands on.

The idea echoes early pronouncements from Trump that the States could acquire Greenland, an autonomous territory in the kingdom of Denmark rich in uranium, rare earth minerals, and iron ore.

After that, he moved his sights to the benefits that could be yielded from Ukraine in return for U.S. military aid. Initially, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy rejected a proposal that would have handed over half of the country’s critical mineral assets to the United States.

But after meetings which began over the weekend, it appears that Ukraine’s leaders have agreed to a deal which would enable the joint development of the country’s assets in return for strengthened relations with, and military support from, the United States.

According to media reports, the deal is set to be formalised on Friday, with Zelenskyy planning to fly to Washington for this purpose.

For much of its history, Ukraine was known for its contribution to agriculture: Unsurprisingly, given it accounts for a third of the globe’s most fertile land, with wheat, maize, and sunflower oil being some of its main exports in this sector.

But the country also holds 5% of the world’s mineral resources, including 20,000 deposits of 116 different types, of which only 15% (or 3,055) were active. Of the active deposits, 147 were metallic; 4,676 non-metallic.

More specifically, Ukraine has been noted for its supply of rare earth metals, titanium, lithium, beryllium, manganese, gallium, uranium, zirconium, graphite, apatite, fluorite, and nickel.

Titanium – a metal essential for the aerospace, medical, automotive and marine industries – is a particularly attractive commodity for the U.S., and Ukraine holds the world’s largest reserves and was a key supplier to the military sector before the invasion began.

Alongside this is lithium – a commodity whose fortune has fluctuated in recent years, as oversupply in China led to a price plunge, although this is a situation expected to correct itself in the next year or so, as supply wanes again.

Ukraine is home to one of Europe’s biggest confirmed reserves of the metal (at an estimate of 500,000 tonnes), including the Shevchenkivske field and the Kruta Balka block.

Since these are in regions close to the conflict – Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia respectively – their exploitation has not been possible for several years.

The country is also the fifth largest producer of gallium – an increasingly sought-after metal, whose price rose significantly last December due to Chinese export restrictions – in addition to supplying 90% of neon gas which is essential to the U.S. chip industry.

As nations vie to secure the materials critical for the ‘electrification of the globe’ and clean energy transition, Trump’s intentions in Eastern Europe may be ethically questionable, but not surprising.

Join the discussion: See what’s trending right now on Australia’s largest stock forum and be part of the conversations that move the markets.

The material provided in this article is for information only and should not be treated as investment advice. Viewers are encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with a certified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. For full disclaimer information, please click here.

DroneShield has been working on Ukraine’s side since the country was invaded by Russia in February last year.

The company’s technology has been used to fight drones used for reconnaissance, directing artillery strikes and dropping charges. The conflict has been the first to highlight the potential of drones on the modern day battlefield.

But DroneShield’s deployment in Ukraine is not the only reason it’s hit its straps and secured these contracts with government agencies – the details of which remain secret due to defence sensitivities.

The company also has been recommended by the US military for the rollout of systems across America’s Department of Defence. It’s also been deployed in its first US airport (there are 10,000 airports in the US alone), its DroneGun featured in the recent Brazil Presidential inauguration, and gained numerous $1 million-plus deployments with US, European and other government customers.

DroneShield CEO and Managing Director Oleg Vornik said demand for the company’s counterdrone equipment and software-as-a-service offerings has now become mainstream.

“It’s also about preventing the smuggling of contraband into prisons, stopping cross border drug deliveries, drone disruptions to airports and other critical infrastructure, corporate espionage, domestic terrorism and more,” he said.

“It’s a $10 billion market that we’re tapping into with DroneShield, which provides pure-play exposure to the counterdrone and electronic warfare sectors, at a time when defence and security spending is increasing amidst global geopolitical uncertainties.”

DroneShield owns all its Intellectual Property, it’s operating in about 100 countries, and Mr Vornik says the company’s well placed to service more larger-value orders, many of which represent recurring-revenue opportunities.

“We do not require additional cap ex because the business, by nature, does not require expensive machinery,” he said. “We have developed sophisticated systems that we are now using to put together the hardware and software that we sell.”

“We’ve had record revenues every year since we listed on the ASX in 2016 and we expect another year of exceptional growth.

“Importantly, we expect to reach a profitable cashflow-positive position.”

Late last year DroneShield received a $3.7 million investment from Epirus Inc, a US defence unicorn developing software-defined directed energy systems.