Here’s Trump’s Next Move With Zelensky

The Allure of Alliances: Why Trump’s Cabinet Members Are Aligned

Humans form alliances for safety, connection, and shared success. This fundamental instinct applies to political leaders and their cabinets as well. Trump’s cabinet members are no exception; they align with the president because they anticipate tangible, near-term results. The expectation is clear: deliver now, not later. This mindset is rooted in deal-making, where success is measured by what can be achieved quickly. Trump’s administration has shown a preference for bold, immediate actions, often prioritizing speed over long-term planning. This approach has shaped his cabinet’s goals, from brokering a Ukraine minerals deal in an hour to cutting $2 trillion in spending within a year. These are not ordinary ambitions—they are meant to send a clear message: act now, think later.

However, this strategy comes with risks. Markets, for instance, are less interested in short-term political victories than in stability and sustainability. The recent market crash risk is a stark reminder of how short-term thinking can backfire. Trump’s deal-making mindset, while effective in business, may not translate seamlessly to the complexities of international diplomacy, especially in a region as volatile as Ukraine.

The Problem: Different Motivations, Different Priorities

The problem at hand is deceptively simple: people are driven by different things. While Trump and his treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, may have achieved success through lucrative deals in the past, their approach may not resonate with everyone. President Zelensky of Ukraine, for example, is likely motivated by a very different calculus after years of war. His focus is not on quick deals or immediate gains but on lasting peace—a concept that goes far beyond the transactional mindset of a banker or trader.

For Zelensky, the stakes are personal and national. Pride in his people and his country is not something that can be traded away for a short-term gain. The idea of "lasting peace" is central to his vision, and it requires a long-term perspective that deal-makers often lack. While a banker or trader might prioritize the next quarter or the next election cycle, Zelensky is thinking about the next decade—and beyond. This fundamental difference in perspective creates a gap that Trump’s administration must bridge if it hopes to succeed in Ukraine.

A New Approach: Empowering Musk to Make a Deal

So, what’s the alternative? Enter Elon Musk. The idea of appointing Musk to solve Ukraine may seem unconventional, but it is rooted in a simple principle: give Ukraine what it needs now and ask for more in return later. This is how strong individuals—and nations—operate. By offering Zelensky a long-term peace commitment, Trump can create a foundation for trust and collaboration. The key is to frame this commitment as mutually beneficial, not just for Ukraine but for the United States as well.

Musk, with his track record of thinking big and building from scratch, could be the perfect candidate for this challenge. His love for bold projects and his ability to envision the future make him an ideal choice to lead this effort. Imagine Ukraine as Musk’s testing ground—a place where he can experiment with building smart supply chains, modern cities, and cutting-edge infrastructure. If Musk can’t build Ukraine, he certainly can’t build Mars. The challenge is both tantalizing and practical.

The Blueprint for a Better Deal

The blueprint for this deal is clear: give Ukraine a lot now, but ask for even more in the future. Zelensky should be assured of long-term peace, but in return, Ukraine must commit to working harder in peace than it did in war. The focus should be on rebuilding the country from the ground up—reconstructing cities, airports, and communities. Minerals are just the beginning. The real prize is the opportunity to collaborate on building a modern society, complete with advanced technology hubs, efficient tax systems, and a thriving marketplace.

This is not just about minerals or money; it’s about creating empowered citizens and a trade surplus. It’s about building a strong, stable ally that can stand as a beacon of American influence in Eastern Europe. The best-case scenario is clear: Ukraine becomes a powerful friend, a testament to American greatness. The worst-case scenario is no less compelling: even if the project falters, the effort itself would be historic.

The Risk of Frustration and Fallout

But what if this approach fails? If deals don’t happen, frustration will mount. Trump’s cabinet members will bear the brunt of the blame, and the fallout could be severe. Many will be fired, and Trump will not hesitate to make it public. This is the Trump 1.0 playbook—swift, decisive, and often brutal. However, Trump 2.0 is supposed to be different. This version of Trump is bolder, more powerful, and supposedly more willing to learn from past mistakes.

The question is whether Trump is ready to embrace a more long-term vision—one that prioritizes lasting success over short-term gains. If he is, then appointing Musk to lead this effort could be a masterstroke. It would show that Trump is not just a deal-maker but a statesman with a vision for the future. If not, then the inevitable fallout will be just another chapter in the Trump saga. Either way, the stakes are high, and the world is watching.

Conclusion: Thinking Big, Thinking Long

The ultimate message here is simple: think big, think long. This is not just about ending a war or cutting a deal; it’s about building something that will outlast Trump, Musk, and Zelensky. It’s about creating a legacy that will redefine how the world thinks about American leadership. If Trump can pull this off, he won’t need to boast about it. Others will do the talking for him.

Imagine a Ukraine that is not just a battlefield but a blueprint for the future—a place where technology, infrastructure, and innovation come together to create something truly remarkable. This is the kind of vision that can inspire a nation and reshape a region. It’s ambitious, yes, but sometimes the biggest risks lead to the biggest rewards. All it takes is the courage to think differently, to imagine a world where even the toughest challenges can be solved with creativity, determination, and a little bit of greed—for the right kind of legacy.