By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Despite recent public disagreements between President Zelensky and the Trump administration, the proposed US-Ukraine minerals deal remains poised for signature. Zelensky confirmed the agreement is ready to be finalized, emphasizing Ukraine’s continued constructive approach. The deal would grant the US access to crucial rare earth mineral reserves within Ukraine. Its execution hinges solely on the readiness of both parties involved.
Read the original article here
President Zelenskyy recently stated that a mineral deal with the United States is “ready to sign,” contingent on both parties being prepared to finalize the agreement. This statement immediately sparks a flurry of questions and concerns. The deal itself has a complex and somewhat murky history, evolving significantly from an initial proposal that involved Ukraine using its mineral resources to repay a massive $500 billion debt for past military aid.
This current iteration, however, is drastically different. It proposes establishing a joint U.S.-Ukraine reconstruction investment fund. Ukraine would contribute 50% of all revenues from government-owned natural resource assets – including minerals, oil, and gas – to this fund. Notably, existing revenue streams from major producers like Naftogaz and Ukrnafta are excluded. The fund’s success hinges entirely on generating revenue from new investments, making it a high-stakes gamble on the future.
The funds generated would be reinvested into further development of Ukrainian assets, aiming to attract additional private sector investment. The success of this plan rests heavily on the private sector’s response and level of involvement. This raises concerns about the actual financial return for the United States. The deal’s profitability for the US is completely dependent upon the success of new investments and the amount of private investment attracted. It’s not a guaranteed payout, but rather a long-term investment with uncertain returns.
Many have expressed strong reservations about this deal. The central criticism revolves around the perception that it’s unfair to Ukraine, especially given the ongoing war and lack of robust security guarantees from the United States. Some view this as an attempt to exploit Ukraine’s situation, reminiscent of previous proposals which felt exploitative and far too one sided. Others even go so far as to call it extortion and suggest that Ukraine should instead pursue similar agreements with European partners instead of the US. There’s a deep-seated mistrust of the deal’s fairness and long-term implications.
There’s also significant historical context to consider. The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, signed in 1994, saw Ukraine relinquish its nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees from the US, UK, and Russia. Russia’s violation of this memorandum through its invasions of 2014 and 2022 cast a long shadow over any future agreements involving the United States and Ukraine. The lack of concrete security guarantees in the mineral deal feels like a betrayal of that earlier agreement; a failure to uphold the promises made in exchange for Ukraine’s denuclearization.
The optics of this deal are also problematic. Even if the terms are ultimately beneficial, the perception of the United States pressuring a nation at war for its resources creates a deeply negative image. The lack of transparency around the deal’s details adds to the unease. Many feel it’s being used to create a facade of progress without fully disclosing the implications for both countries.
Concerns extend beyond the immediate financial aspects. The potential for conflict of interest exists as well. The inclusion of the U.S. in the Fund also brings with it the potential for conflicts of interest. It is not unreasonable to believe that a U.S. centric deal may allow for U.S. companies to gain unfair advantage compared to other international bidders.
The comment from President Zelenskyy about the deal being “ready to sign if both parties are ready” is itself ambiguous, leaving open the possibility of the agreement still being negotiated or even collapsing. There’s considerable skepticism about the United States’ commitment to the deal and whether it will truly benefit Ukraine. His words hint at the complexities of such a large scale international agreement and the numerous factors that would need to be agreed upon before the signing of the deal.
In conclusion, the mineral deal presents a complex situation with significant ethical, financial, and geopolitical implications. While it purports to be a collaborative effort aimed at Ukraine’s reconstruction, the concerns raised about potential exploitation, lack of security guarantees, and the overall fairness of the agreement remain prominent and warrant serious consideration. The ongoing uncertainty surrounding the deal’s final terms adds to the complexities already inherent in this international agreement. The outcome will likely have far-reaching consequences for both the United States and Ukraine, shaping their relationship for years to come.