Security experts highlight pros, cons of Ukraine-US minerals deal

Ukraine and the United States are set to sign a landmark minerals agreement, marking a significant step toward strengthening economic ties between the two nations. The deal, which was approved by Ukraine’s Cabinet of Ministers on Wednesday, includes provisions for the co-ownership and management of a post-war reconstruction fund for Ukraine. This fund will be funded by 50% of future revenues from the country’s natural resources and will be jointly managed by both countries.

The agreement, which will be signed by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during his visit to the White House on Friday, also states that the U.S. will maintain a “long-term financial commitment to the development of a stable and economically prosperous Ukraine.” This is a clear indication of the U.S.’s support for Ukraine’s economic growth and recovery.

The deal has been welcomed by both American and Ukrainian business leaders. Andy Hunder, president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Ukraine, believes that the agreement will have a positive impact on both countries. He explained that the fund will focus on state-owned enterprises and Ukraine’s rich subsoil resources, including gas, oil, and critical minerals. By introducing professional management to these enterprises, which are currently facing mismanagement issues, the fund could unlock profits and turn them around quickly.

Hunder also revealed that discussions about Ukrainian economic potential have been high on the agenda between the two countries since 2024, when Senator Lindsey Graham visited Ukraine. He believes that this deal is a step towards a peaceful solution and that the U.S. is focused on finding ways to stop the killing of Ukrainians by the Russians. He also predicts that a ceasefire will be achieved this year, and that this is the perfect time for Ukraine to present its biggest opportunity for economic recovery and reconstruction since World War II.

Roman Opimakh, former general director of the Ukrainian Geological Survey, agrees that the deal could benefit both countries. He believes that it will help the U.S. to diversify its rare metal supply and decrease its dependence on China. For Ukraine, the deal could enable post-war re-industrialization and economic growth, allowing the country to increase its role on the global stage.

However, while the deal indicates strong U.S. interest in Ukraine’s economic future, security experts caution that it is not a comprehensive solution to Ukraine’s security challenges. Former defense minister Andriy Zagorodnyuk, now the chairman of the Center for Defense Strategies in Ukraine, believes that the deal has broader implications. He sees it as a demonstration of the U.S.’s vested interest in Ukraine and a signal of support for its stability. However, he also emphasizes that economic ties are not enough to guarantee Ukrainian sovereignty in the face of Russian aggression. To deter future attacks, Ukraine needs military power – either on its own or in partnership with NATO and European allies.

Zagorodnyuk believes that the ideal solution would be for Ukraine to join NATO. However, if this is not possible, he believes that there should be a package that enables Ukraine to defend itself against aggression. This package must be robust and strong enough to deter Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The details of the agreement have been the subject of intense negotiations, with both sides working to reach a mutually beneficial deal. According to sources, Ukraine was able to negotiate more favorable terms than the U.S. had originally proposed, bringing down an initial U.S. demand for a $500 billion claim on its natural resources. The deal does not include explicit U.S. security guarantees, which Kyiv had originally sought. The U.S. will maintain decision-making authority within the fund under its own legal framework, with ownership terms to be defined in later agreements.

Despite some controversy surrounding the deal, with U.S. President Donald Trump recently labeling Zelenskyy a “dictator” and pressuring him to finalize the deal quickly, the overall sentiment is positive. The U.S. administration has described the deal as a way for the U.S. to recover tens of billions of dollars in military aid sent to Ukraine. However, the question remains whether this economic partnership can also foster lasting peace and stability in Ukraine.

In conclusion, the signing of this landmark minerals agreement between Ukraine and the United States is a significant step towards strengthening economic ties between the two nations. It is a clear indication of the U.S.’s support for Ukraine’s economic growth and recovery. While concerns about security challenges persist, the deal has the potential to unlock profits and

POPULAR