By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Negotiations between Ukraine and the US regarding a subsoil resources agreement remain unresolved. A Ukrainian source indicates President Zelenskyy is unwilling to sign the current draft due to several unspecified problematic issues. The proposed agreement, intended to aid in ending the war with Russia, is viewed by Ukraine as lacking a true partnership, containing only unilateral Ukrainian commitments. This stalled agreement follows overnight negotiations and conflicting statements regarding its imminent signing.
Read the original article here
Ukraine’s refusal to sign a subsoil deal with the United States, as reported by Sky News, stems from what are being described as “problematic issues.” The core of the problem seems to be a deeply flawed and arguably exploitative proposal from the US side. It’s not just about the financial terms; it’s about the inherent distrust and the perceived lack of fairness within the deal’s structure.
The proposed deal appears to be heavily weighted in favor of the US, demanding a significant portion of Ukraine’s natural resource revenues in return for what many perceive as insufficient compensation. The suggested 50% share of profits from resource extraction, coupled with another 50% of all new licenses issued to third parties – in perpetuity – is seen as an extremely unbalanced agreement. It reads like an ultimatum rather than a mutually beneficial partnership. This evokes strong reactions, ranging from accusations of extortion and usury to comparisons with the tactics of a mafioso or a dictator.
Many observers question the rationale behind such a one-sided arrangement. The argument that the US should be generously compensating Ukraine for its efforts in weakening Russia, while simultaneously having pushed it toward NATO, which arguably exacerbated the current conflict, holds considerable weight. The perception is that Ukraine is being asked to sacrifice a significant portion of its future economic potential without adequate recompense for its sacrifices and contributions to the larger geopolitical strategy.
The lack of trust in the current US administration further fuels the reluctance to sign. The argument that any agreement signed under the present circumstances would be easily reneged upon is prevalent. Past instances of broken promises and inconsistent policies have created a deep skepticism, making any assurances of support or future cooperation seem unconvincing.
The reported demand, especially when viewed in the context of previous broken agreements, casts serious doubt on the sincerity of the US’s commitment to Ukraine’s long-term well-being. Concerns arise that such a deal might leave Ukraine economically vulnerable and dependent on the whims of a US administration known for its volatile behavior. This explains the strong preference among many to explore alternative partnerships with the EU and UK, considered more reliable and committed to supporting Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty.
Many feel the deal is not merely problematic, but actively harmful to Ukraine’s long-term interests. The emphasis on extracting Ukraine’s natural resources without providing equivalent benefit highlights the perception of the deal as pure extraction of wealth, a form of extractive capitalism. This, coupled with a complete lack of trust, understandably leads to widespread opposition to signing such an agreement.
Furthermore, the sheer magnitude of the requested return, a staggering 500 billion dollars in payback for 100 billion dollars in aid, is perceived as usurious. The sheer imbalance, even beyond the ethical concerns, is viewed as economically unfeasible and unsustainable for Ukraine. The proposal is seen as a desperate grab for resources rather than a genuine partnership intended to support Ukrainian recovery and reconstruction.
The widespread condemnation of the proposed deal speaks volumes about its inherent flaws. The lack of trust in the current US administration, the perceived unfairness of the terms, and the concern that the deal would leave Ukraine economically vulnerable combine to create a situation where signing the agreement is simply not considered a viable option. Ukraine’s refusal is, therefore, not merely a rejection of a specific deal but a rejection of the underlying assumptions and power dynamics that shaped it. The refusal represents a powerful assertion of Ukrainian sovereignty and its determination to seek more equitable and mutually respectful partnerships.