By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The US and Ukraine are nearing a finalized agreement establishing a reconstruction investment fund, focusing on mineral exploitation. A key negotiating round will occur in Washington, D.C., from April 21-26, 2025, aiming for a completed deal by then. This fund would grant the US significant control over Ukrainian resource projects, including a potential veto on new initiatives. The US aims to recoup its substantial financial and military aid through this agreement, a key factor driving the negotiations. Concerns about potential conflicts with the EU are acknowledged, but the US will not interfere with Ukraine’s obligations to the EU.
Read the original article here
Leaked documents suggest a mineral exploitation deal between Ukraine and the US is slated for finalization by the end of April. This agreement, framed as an “economic partnership and reconstruction investment fund,” grants the US significant control over Ukraine’s natural resources.
The proposed structure of the fund’s board—three US appointees and two Ukrainian appointees—effectively gives Washington veto power over key decisions concerning infrastructure and resource projects. This includes roads, railways, ports, mines, oil, and gas extraction, as well as the mining of critical minerals.
The deal’s terms appear heavily weighted in favor of the US, with Washington entitled to all profits from the fund, plus a 4% annual return, until all prior military and financial aid to Ukraine is fully repaid. This repayment clause is particularly concerning, as it leaves open the question of what Ukraine receives in tangible benefits beyond the immediate financial influx. The absence of any mention of security guarantees against Russian aggression adds to these concerns, making the agreement seem one-sided and potentially exploitative.
There is speculation that this deal is a calculated move by Ukraine, designed to leverage the US’s commitment to pressure for further aid from Europe and other international partners. This theory posits that the agreement’s one-sided nature is a deliberate tactic, allowing Ukraine to accept the deal’s terms while subsequently imposing tariffs or otherwise limiting the US’s influence.
However, significant skepticism surrounds this deal’s long-term viability. Many question the reliability of any agreement signed under the current US administration, citing a history of broken promises and a potential for renegotiation or outright abandonment by a future US administration. This uncertainty casts doubt on whether the agreement’s purported benefits will ever materialize for Ukraine.
The timing of this leaked information raises further questions. Some believe this leak might be a strategic move by the current White House, reflecting wishful thinking rather than a realistic assessment of the situation. Others view it as evidence of Ukraine’s vulnerable position and a potential surrender to what some perceive as US pressure.
Many observers express concern about the implications for Ukraine’s sovereignty and the potential for future exploitation. Concerns are raised about the lack of security guarantees within the deal, highlighting the imbalance of power and the potential for the US to renege on any commitments of further support. This situation is compared to the exploitation of an assault victim in desperate need of help.
The fact that the deal focuses heavily on mineral extraction without addressing broader geopolitical issues fuels the argument that it primarily serves the interests of US corporations. The deal may lead to a situation where Ukraine receives short-term financial relief, but at the cost of long-term economic independence and national security.
The US’s actions are seen by many as a betrayal of an ally in need, further damaging its international reputation. There is also the added concern that Russia could exploit any weakness in the agreement that favors the US. Critics believe the US is not acting in good faith, using the situation to gain access to essential resources, and that the deal does not address the core issue of Russian aggression.
Moreover, there’s concern that the current administration may utilize this deal as a political tool, possibly to further its own agenda rather than prioritizing Ukraine’s security or long-term interests. The speculation is that future administrations might renegotiate or reverse the deal’s terms, leaving Ukraine in an even more precarious situation. There’s a sentiment that this deal will not only fail to address the immediate conflict, but may also create further complexities for Ukraine’s future relationships with other nations. This underscores the overall feeling that the current situation is far from ideal, and the April deadline looms with immense uncertainty for Ukraine.