By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump expressed concern on Truth Social regarding Ukraine’s delay in signing a crucial rare earth elements agreement with the United States, a delay exceeding three weeks. He voiced hope for immediate finalization of the deal. Despite this, Trump reported progress on a broader Russia-Ukraine peace agreement, suggesting optimism for its eventual success. This follows Ukrainian Finance Minister Serhiy Marchenko’s announcement that the rare earth minerals agreement would not be signed this week.
Read the original article here
The delay of a purported mineral agreement between the US and Ukraine, now stretching at least three weeks, raises serious questions. The lack of a signed agreement isn’t surprising given the current geopolitical climate and the perceived nature of the proposed deal. Many see the deal not as a mutually beneficial agreement, but as an attempt to exploit Ukraine’s resources for little to no gain for the Ukrainian people.
The suggestion of coercion is a recurring theme. The idea of forcing Ukraine into an agreement under duress, especially during an ongoing war, is met with widespread condemnation. The perceived unfairness of the deal is a significant factor in the delay; many believe the agreement heavily favors the US while offering little in return for Ukraine. This perception of extortion, coupled with a history of broken promises by global powers, breeds deep distrust.
Further fueling the skepticism is the lack of demonstrated support for Ukraine from the party proposing the deal. Accusations of prioritizing personal gain over Ukrainian needs are rampant, with some suggesting a focus on leveraging the war for a personal political victory, rather than achieving a fair resolution or providing genuine aid. The absence of security guarantees and the alleged acceptance of Russia’s annexation of Crimea are viewed as further points of contention.
Concerns over the US’s trustworthiness are central to the argument against the agreement. Past examples of broken international agreements are frequently cited, reinforcing the belief that any deal would be unenforceable or, worse, detrimental to Ukraine’s long-term interests. The perceived lack of genuine support, combined with the history of broken promises, makes any agreement suspect. This deep mistrust effectively paralyzes the possibility of a productive discussion or negotiation.
Instead of focusing on a fair and equitable partnership, critics perceive the proposed deal as a power grab, aiming to capitalize on Ukraine’s vulnerability. The perceived lack of reciprocity, where Ukraine receives minimal benefits while surrendering valuable assets, is considered unacceptable. The argument is straightforward: without offering meaningful support or fair compensation, any agreement is viewed as nothing more than an act of exploitation.
The accusations extend to a potential attempt to manipulate the war’s outcome for personal gain. The theory that allowing the conflict to continue could lead to the acquisition of minerals at discounted prices is raised, highlighting the cynical interpretations of the proposed deal. This is further fueled by the perceived prioritizing of personal political aims over assisting Ukraine to secure a sustainable peace.
In essence, the delay is a manifestation of widespread distrust and the perceived unfairness of the deal. The lack of concrete benefits for Ukraine, coupled with a history of broken promises and perceived exploitation, makes the idea of signing any agreement seem highly unlikely, and understandably so. Without meaningful security guarantees, respect for Ukraine’s territorial integrity, and equitable compensation, the agreement is widely viewed as exploitative and unacceptable, thereby causing the protracted delay. The complete absence of any demonstrated benefit to Ukraine fuels resistance and suspicion towards the deal. Until these fundamental concerns are addressed, any agreement remains highly unlikely.