In a move that could reshape economic and geopolitical relations, the United States and Ukraine have reached an agreement on the exploitation of Ukraine’s natural resources. However, despite the deal’s potential significance, several critical questions remain unresolved. While Washington secures a stake in Ukraine’s resource profits, Kyiv hopes that this partnership will solidify American support and potentially lead to security guarantees in the future.
A High-Stakes Negotiation
After a series of intense negotiations, the U.S. and Ukraine finalized a bilateral agreement concerning the exploitation of Ukrainian raw materials. As confirmed by U.S. President Donald Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is set to travel to Washington to formally sign the agreement. Trump described the deal as “a very big deal, a truly significant one,” during a press briefing.
According to Neue Zürcher Zeitung, which first reported on the agreement, the deal outlines the creation of a joint fund where half of all future profits derived from Ukrainian resource extraction will be deposited. Additionally, both parties will contribute further payments, the specifics of which are yet to be determined. At least once per year, funds will be reinvested into Ukraine’s economy with the stated goal of promoting “security and prosperity.” European Pravda also provided additional insights into the agreement’s provisions.
Tensions in U.S.-Ukraine Relations
The negotiations leading to the deal were far from smooth. Reports indicate that in mid-February, the U.S. Treasury Secretary presented Ukraine with what many perceived as an ultimatum. Zelensky reportedly reacted strongly, displaying visible anger at the terms initially proposed. In response, Trump criticized Zelensky publicly, calling him a “dictator” and even blaming the Ukrainian government for provoking Russia’s aggression.
Despite these tensions, Ukraine remained committed to securing an agreement, hoping it would lead to long-term security assurances. Zelensky had previously proposed a similar arrangement in the fall of the previous year, aiming to exchange resource access for explicit American security guarantees. However, Trump’s approach upended these expectations, as he significantly inflated the value of American aid and demanded direct compensation through Ukraine’s natural resources.
A Revised Deal with Fewer Concessions
While Ukraine has managed to remove some of the most controversial clauses from the initial agreement, the final version remains a matter of debate. Notably, the requirement for Ukraine to contribute two dollars for every American dollar, which was originally included, has been scrapped. Additionally, revenues from existing oil and gas resources are excluded from the agreement, ensuring that Ukraine’s current budget remains unaffected.
Kyiv has also secured greater influence over the management of the fund. Initially, the U.S. was set to have full control over its operations under American legal standards. However, the revised agreement now allocates shares based on each party’s financial contributions. Furthermore, neither side can sell its stake without mutual consent, preserving some of Ukraine’s sovereignty over its resources.
The Unresolved Issue of Security Guarantees
One of the most pressing concerns is whether this agreement will lead to tangible security commitments from the U.S. The document makes vague references to American support in helping Ukraine secure guarantees, but no formal pledges have been made. Moreover, it remains unclear whether Washington has abandoned its initial demand that raw material profits be used exclusively to repay past U.S. military assistance.
While future aid remains a separate matter for negotiation, Ukraine’s leadership views the agreement as a way to keep the U.S. engaged in the country for the long term. The focus on future projects, particularly the extraction of critical raw materials and rare earth elements—resources in which Ukraine is rich—makes this a strategic move for both sides. However, many of these deposits remain untapped, requiring significant investment before they can become commercially viable.
American Investment: A Necessary Step
The agreement grants American businesses a prime position in Ukraine’s resource sector, but it also implies that the U.S. must commit substantial investments. Given that Ukraine is currently at war, Kyiv is unable to finance these projects alone. The question of where this funding will come from remains unresolved, as many American companies have so far been reluctant to invest in a conflict zone.
The Geopolitical and Military Dimension
Another major issue is whether American financial commitments will suffice. Many of Ukraine’s largest lithium reserves, for instance, are located near the front lines or in Russian-occupied territories. If these resources are to be secured or reclaimed, will the U.S. be willing to provide military support beyond financial investments?
Interestingly, a previous version of the agreement reportedly included a clause that would have granted the U.S. a greater share of profits from any resource deposits reclaimed from Russian control. This provision was later removed, possibly due to concerns that it could lead to secret negotiations between Washington and Moscow at Ukraine’s expense.
The Broader Implications
Trump has made it clear that he is indifferent to whether business is conducted with Kyiv or Moscow. However, he also understands that he holds more leverage over Ukraine, given its reliance on American military aid. This power dynamic has forced Zelensky into a delicate balancing act—securing an economic agreement with a U.S. administration that remains skeptical about Ukraine’s future, while simultaneously attempting to secure a seat at the negotiating table for Ukraine’s long-term security.
While this agreement may ensure a continued U.S. presence in Ukraine, it does not address some of the country’s most urgent concerns. Without clear security commitments, Kyiv remains vulnerable, and the long-term effectiveness of this deal will depend on how much the U.S. is ultimately willing to invest—not just financially, but also in terms of strategic military support.
This article was prepared based on materials published by Neue Zürcher Zeitung. The author does not claim authorship of the original text but presents their interpretation of the content for informational purposes.
The original article can be found at the following link: Neue Zürcher Zeitung
All rights to the original text belong to Neue Zürcher Zeitung.
