The idea of an economic pact between Ukraine and the U.S. in exchange for Washington’s support for the war-torn nation has been gaining momentum recently. Discussions have intensified around the possibility of a broader agreement to end the war, yet Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has remained cautious. He has emphasized that the deal, as currently proposed, lacks concrete security guarantees for Ukraine.
"I didn't let the ministers sign a relevant agreement because, in my view, it is not ready to protect us or our interests," Zelenskyy stated in Munich on Saturday. According to reports, the U.S. had proposed taking ownership of 50% of Ukraine's critical minerals, a deal that Zelenskyy found too lopsided in favor of U.S. interests.
A Game-Changer or a Geopolitical Trap?
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham weighed in on the issue, calling the potential agreement a "game changer" in resolving the ongoing conflict. He also highlighted how it could prove to be a major setback for Russian President Vladimir Putin.
"This minerals agreement between the United States and Ukraine is a game changer because President Trump can go to the American people and say Ukraine is not a burden, it's a benefit," Graham explained. He further emphasized that if the agreement materializes, it would give the U.S. a stronger stake in Ukraine’s stability, making it harder for Russia to undermine Kyiv’s position.
Ukraine is home to vast reserves of valuable minerals essential for the production of high-tech products. The Kyiv School of Economics estimates that Ukraine holds deposits of 20 out of the 50 critical raw materials, including titanium, lithium, and zirconium. With these resources in high demand, particularly as the U.S. seeks to reduce its reliance on China, the deal could be a strategic economic win. However, Zelenskyy has made it clear that any exploitation of these resources must be tied to ironclad security assurances for Ukraine.
Security vs. Economic Gains: The Sticking Point
Democratic Senator Chris Coons expressed cautious optimism about the deal, stating that it could be beneficial for both nations—provided it includes strong security provisions for Ukraine.
"If this is an investment opportunity where American companies and other companies from Europe would be involved in mining and processing, so that we can be independent of Chinese sources of these strategic minerals—and if this helps deepen and strengthen our partnership to ensure the security of Ukraine going forward—that would be a positive thing," Coons told CNBC. However, he also noted that differing descriptions of the deal have created some uncertainty about its true nature.
A Transactional Foreign Policy Approach?
One major concern surrounding the U.S. proposal is its transactional nature. According to reports, the existing deal suggests using Ukraine's rare earth minerals as "compensation" for the financial aid already provided by the Biden administration, as well as a form of payment for future support.
"The U.S. has made it very clear that their foreign policy is going to be transactional, nothing else," said Binaifer Nowrojee, president of the Open Society Foundation, in an interview with CNBC. Despite this reality, she pointed out that Ukraine still holds a strong bargaining position.
Ukraine has long sought to develop its critical mineral industry, and an agreement with the U.S. could provide the necessary capital for the labor-intensive process of mineral extraction and refinement. However, experts warn that negotiations must be conducted in "good faith" to ensure a fair deal for both parties.
The Road Ahead: A Broader Deal with Russia?
Nataliia Shapoval, head of KSE Institute, a think tank within the Kyiv School of Economics, echoed similar sentiments. She believes that a well-structured deal could benefit both countries but cautioned against agreements focused solely on economic compensation.
"Ukraine wants to believe that Trump wants an economics-based, serious basis for discussions with Putin. If there were more U.S. investors in Ukraine, there would be more basis to protect Ukraine," Shapoval noted. However, she insisted that any deal should be part of a broader negotiation strategy with Russia aimed at ending the conflict.
"If Trump is not planning to use critical raw materials as part of the framework for negotiations with Russia, and is just thinking we want reparations for its help, it's a waste of time for everyone involved," she added.
Final Thoughts
As talks continue, the stakes remain high for both Ukraine and the U.S. While an agreement could unlock economic benefits and help Ukraine tap into its vast mineral wealth, it must be structured in a way that prioritizes security over mere economic transactions. Without binding security guarantees, Ukraine risks entering into an arrangement that serves primarily U.S. interests while leaving its own vulnerabilities unaddressed.
The coming weeks will likely reveal whether a compromise can be reached—one that ensures not only economic cooperation but also long-term stability for Ukraine in the face of ongoing geopolitical challenges.
Login