By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The U.S. proposed a deal to Ukraine offering security guarantees, including potential troop deployment, in exchange for 50% of its rare earth minerals. This proposal, presented by Treasury Secretary Bessent, was deemed a “memorandum,” not a formal security agreement, by President Zelensky, who requested further review. While Zelensky hasn’t signed, he has previously indicated openness to resource partnerships for security guarantees. Trump further claimed an “essential agreement” on a $500 billion resource deal.
Read the original article here
The assertion that the US desires 50% of Ukrainian mineral resources, potentially deploying troops to safeguard them, as reported by NBC, is alarming and raises significant questions. This proposition feels reminiscent of historical land grabs and resource exploitation, prompting concerns about ethical implications and potential long-term consequences.
The underlying motive appears to be securing access to rare earth minerals, a critical component in various technologies. This pursuit is driven, arguably, by fears of dependence on China, the current dominant supplier. This reliance creates a vulnerability, especially in times of geopolitical tension, pushing the US to seek alternative sources even if it means resorting to questionable methods.
The proposal to deploy troops to protect these mineral assets raises fundamental questions of sovereignty and international law. The image of American forces securing mineral rights in a war-torn nation, rather than protecting human lives or democratic principles, contradicts the image often presented by the US government. This contrasts sharply with previous assertions of non-intervention and a focus on humanitarian aid. The perception could damage the US’s reputation as a reliable ally, leading to mistrust among other nations.
The suggestion of a 50/50 split of Ukrainian mineral resources feels less like a negotiation and more like a dictated division of spoils. Such an arrangement, forced upon a nation already facing immense challenges, would likely be met with widespread opposition. It reinforces the impression of exploitative colonialism rather than genuine partnership. The idea of accepting the proposal only in exchange for military protection within pre-invasion borders would be perceived by some as an extremely generous compromise under immense pressure from the US.
The potential for deploying troops fuels skepticism among many, who view it as a blatant act of aggression masquerading as a protective measure. This move would likely exacerbate existing tensions, possibly leading to further conflict. The lack of popular support within the US for such an undertaking, along with criticism echoing similar accusations against past US interventions in the Middle East, strongly suggests a lack of domestic consent or understanding.
The entire proposition ignores the crucial perspective of the Ukrainian people, whose lives and land are at stake. Their right to control their own resources and determine their future should be paramount, not subject to the strategic needs of a foreign power, even if that power has been one of Ukraine’s strongest allies. The proposal underscores a fundamental disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty, potentially undermining their ability to rebuild and recover from the ongoing conflict.
This purported plan contrasts sharply with the stated humanitarian goals often cited for US involvement in Ukraine. Instead of prioritizing the welfare of the Ukrainian population, the focus seems to have shifted towards the acquisition of valuable resources, potentially perpetuating a cycle of resource-driven conflicts that harm the very population that is supposed to benefit from US aid.
The lack of transparency and the questionable ethical implications associated with this proposal cast doubt on the motives of those who advocate for it. The absence of broader international support and the potential damage to US credibility suggest that it’s a risky strategy with potentially dire consequences.
Ultimately, securing access to rare earth minerals is undeniably important for the United States in the 21st century. However, the proposed approach appears heavy-handed, ethically questionable, and potentially counterproductive to long-term relations and regional stability. A more diplomatic and collaborative approach that respects Ukrainian sovereignty and international law is urgently needed. The current plan, as described, seems designed to ignite more controversy than cooperation.