By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A proposed US-Ukraine natural resources deal, described as a framework by President Zelensky, outlines a jointly managed investment fund where Ukraine contributes 50% of future revenues from state-owned assets. The agreement lacks explicit security guarantees, which Zelensky intends to discuss with President Trump during an upcoming meeting. While Zelensky emphasized the deal’s potential for success and future security, he clarified that Ukraine will not incur debt as part of this arrangement. The deal aims to attract investment and aid Ukraine’s post-conflict recovery, but has prompted concerns among some Ukrainians regarding resource access for the United States.
Read the original article here
Zelensky’s recent characterization of the US-Ukraine minerals deal as a mere “framework” highlights a critical issue: the agreement conspicuously lacks concrete security guarantees. This leaves the deal feeling more like a preliminary step than a substantive agreement, raising significant concerns about its long-term effectiveness and Ukraine’s overall security. The core of the problem lies in the vague nature of the agreement itself; essentially a commitment to negotiate a future agreement, rather than a binding deal with concrete terms. This leaves the future of the deal uncertain, vulnerable to shifting political winds and potential backtracking from either side.
The lack of security guarantees is a particularly troubling aspect, leaving Ukraine potentially exposed. Without explicit commitments of military aid, protection from Russian aggression, or support for Ukraine’s defense capabilities, the deal might only leave the country in a more vulnerable position economically, without any assurance that the economic concessions will lead to greater security. This creates a significant imbalance, with Ukraine potentially relinquishing significant economic resources without receiving reciprocal protection. The absence of these guarantees makes the entire arrangement highly precarious.
Concerns extend beyond the immediate security implications. The current structure creates the potential for future political manipulation. The ambiguous nature of the agreement could be exploited for political gain, with either party potentially using it to shift blame for any future failures. This opens the door for accusations of bad faith or broken promises, potentially hindering future cooperation and damaging international relations.
The perceived lack of substance in the deal also suggests an underlying power imbalance. It can be seen as a form of economic leverage, giving the US significant control over Ukraine’s future economic trajectory even if the war continues or concludes through negotiation. This possibility raises questions about whether the deal truly serves Ukraine’s long-term interests or primarily benefits the US’s own economic and geopolitical objectives. This economic dependence could leave Ukraine vulnerable to exploitation and limit its ability to pursue independent economic policies.
The deal’s apparent focus on economic aspects, while neglecting the urgent need for military support, could also undermine Ukraine’s military capabilities. Without robust security guarantees, Ukraine could be forced to divert resources away from crucial defense initiatives to meet the requirements of the minerals agreement, potentially leaving it more vulnerable to future attacks. This could also have a chilling effect on investments in military capacity, further compromising the country’s security.
Furthermore, the absence of significant input from other key players, like the EU, adds another layer of complexity. The lack of a coordinated international strategy leaves Ukraine potentially vulnerable to shifting geopolitical alignments, and the lack of participation from allies who also have a vested interest in the situation could leave Ukraine without the broad-based support it needs for a lasting peace.
The situation underscores the importance of secure and reliable agreements in international relations. Deals that lack clarity and concrete commitments, particularly those concerning sensitive issues like resource extraction and national security, can backfire spectacularly. The current framework requires substantial improvements to assure the deal serves the interests of all parties involved and provides the needed stability for Ukraine to thrive in a post-conflict world. Without a fundamental shift in approach to address the core concerns of security guarantees, the minerals deal risks becoming a symbol of political opportunism rather than a meaningful step towards lasting peace. The current state of the agreement necessitates a renewed focus on comprehensive security measures to avoid the deal becoming a detrimental impediment to Ukraine’s post-conflict rebuilding.