By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Next week, the U.S. will sign a rare earths minerals deal with Ukraine, as announced by President Trump. This agreement, initially discussed in February, follows a contentious Oval Office meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy. The deal, encompassing an 80-page agreement, aims to provide the U.S. with valuable minerals in exchange for further military aid to Ukraine. Separately, Trump expressed optimism about a future trade deal with Europe, aiming to address the U.S. trade deficit with the EU.
Read the original article here
Trump says the U.S. will sign a rare earths minerals deal with Ukraine next week, a claim met with widespread skepticism. The announcement itself raises numerous questions, primarily concerning the feasibility and even the existence of such a deal. Many are questioning the practicality of extracting rare earth minerals from Ukraine during an ongoing war, highlighting the lack of currently operating mines. The logistical hurdles, from accessing potentially contested sites to the complexities of extraction amidst active conflict, appear insurmountable.
The assertion that this deal will be signed next week is viewed with considerable doubt given past instances of similar pronouncements by Trump that failed to materialize. The cynicism surrounding this particular claim is amplified by the absence of any corroborating information from Ukrainian sources. A lack of confirmation from the Ukrainian government casts serious doubt on the veracity of the announced agreement.
Beyond the immediate logistical difficulties lies the crucial issue of processing. China currently dominates the rare earth mineral processing industry, holding a near-monopoly. The environmental impact of this processing, including the need for safe disposal of radioactive byproducts like thorium, is a major concern. The significant environmental challenges inherent in processing these minerals raise doubts about the economic viability of such an endeavor, especially considering the current global geopolitical landscape. The United States’ past reluctance to invest heavily in domestic rare earth processing, due to the significant environmental risks and costs, makes the current proposal seem unrealistic.
The idea that the U.S. would suddenly overcome decades of hesitation and establish a large-scale processing operation in a war-torn country like Ukraine seems far-fetched to many observers. There’s a distinct possibility that any agreement would primarily serve to benefit the United States, potentially at the expense of Ukraine and its environment, leaving the latter country with the burden of environmental remediation. This raises concerns about the ethical implications of such a deal.
The timing of this announcement also raises eyebrows. With the ongoing war, a significant question is who would actually benefit from this agreement, particularly in the context of existing global power dynamics. Some suggest that the deal might indirectly benefit Russia, potentially through access to rare earth minerals or other forms of leverage. This adds another layer of complexity and suspicion to an already improbable scenario.
Skepticism is further fueled by the absence of details concerning the specific terms and conditions of the proposed agreement. The lack of transparency surrounding the deal lends itself to speculation about the true motives and potential hidden agendas behind the announcement. Without any publicly available information about the contract’s specifics, doubts linger about the potential for financial impropriety or other questionable practices.
In conclusion, Trump’s announcement of an imminent rare earths minerals deal with Ukraine is viewed with a high degree of skepticism due to a confluence of factors. These include the practical challenges of extraction during wartime, the absence of Ukrainian confirmation, the dominance of China in rare earth processing, the significant environmental concerns associated with processing, and the lack of transparency surrounding the proposed agreement’s details. Given past pronouncements and the numerous obstacles to such a deal, many believe this announcement is highly unlikely to translate into a tangible agreement. Instead, the announcement is widely regarded as either wishful thinking, a political maneuver, or potentially something more dubious.