Zelensky – not Trump – ‘won' the US-Ukraine minerals deal
Some news outlets described the deal as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky 'caving' to US President Donald Trump's demands. But we see the agreement as the result of clever bargaining on the part of Ukraine's wartime president.
So, what does the deal mean for Ukraine? And will this help strengthen America's mineral supply chains?
Ukraine is home to 5% of the world's critical mineral wealth, including 22 of the 34 minerals identified by the European Union as vital for defense, construction and high-tech manufacturing.
However, there's a big difference between resources (what's in the ground) and reserves (what can be commercially exploited). Ukraine's proven mineral reserves are limited. Further, Ukraine has an estimated mineral wealth of around US$14.8 trillion, but more than half of this is in territories currently occupied by Russia.
American support for overseas conflict is usually about securing US economic interests — often in the form of resource exploitation. From the Middle East to Asia, US interventions abroad have enabled access for American firms to other countries' oil, gas and minerals.
But the first iteration of the Ukraine mineral deal, which Zelensky rejected in February, had been an especially brazen resource grab by Trump's government. It required Ukraine to cede sovereignty over its land and resources to one country (the US), in order to defend itself from attacks by another (Russia).
These terms were highly exploitative of a country fighting against a years-long military occupation. In addition, they violated Ukraine's constitution, which puts the ownership of Ukraine's natural resources in the hands of the Ukrainian people. Were Zelensky to accept this, he would have faced a tremendous backlash from the public.
In comparison, the new deal sounds like a strategic and (potentially) commercial win for Ukraine. First, this agreement is more just, and it's aligned with Ukraine's short- and medium-term interests. Zelensky describes it as an 'equal partnership' that will modernize Ukraine.
Under the terms, Ukraine will set up a United States–Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund for foreign investments into the country's economy, which will be jointly governed by both countries.
Ukraine will contribute 50% of the income from royalties and licenses to develop critical minerals, oil and gas reserves, while the US can make its contributions in-kind, such as through military assistance or technology transfers.
Ukraine maintains ownership over its natural resources and state enterprises. And the licensing agreements will not require substantial changes to the country's laws or disrupt its future integration with Europe.
Importantly, there is no mention of retroactive debts for the US military assistance already received by Ukraine. This would have created a dangerous precedent, allowing other nations to seek to claim similar debts from Ukraine.
Finally, the deal also signals the Trump administration's commitment to 'a free, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine,' albeit still without any security guarantees.
Profits may be a long time coming
Unsurprisingly, the Trump administration and conservative media in the US are framing the deal as a win.
For too long, Trump argues, Ukraine has enjoyed US taxpayer-funded military assistance, and such assistance now has a price tag. The administration has described the deal to Americans as a profit-making endeavour that can recoup monies spent defending Ukrainian interests.
But in reality, profits are a long way off. The terms of the agreement clearly state the fund's investment will be directed at new resource projects. Existing operations and state-owned projects will fall outside the terms of the agreement.
Mining projects typically work within long time frames. The move from exploration to production is a slow, high-risk and enormously expensive process. It can often take over a decade.
Add to this complexity the fact that some experts are skeptical Ukraine even has enormously valuable reserves. And to bring any promising deposits to market will require major investments.
China factor
It's possible, however, that profits are a secondary calculation for the US. Boxing out China is likely to be as – if not more – important. Like other Western nations, the US is desperate to diversify its critical mineral supply chains.
China controls not just a large proportion of the world's known rare earths deposits, it also has a monopoly on the processing of most critical minerals used in green energy and defense technologies.
The US fears China will weaponize its market dominance against strategic rivals. This is why Western governments increasingly make mineral supply chain resilience central to their foreign policy and defense strategies.
Given Beijing's closeness to Moscow and their deepening cooperation on natural resources, the US-Ukraine deal may prevent Russia — and, by extension, China — from accessing Ukrainian minerals. The terms of the agreement are explicit: 'states and persons who have acted adversely towards Ukraine must not benefit from its reconstruction.'
Finally, the performance of 'the deal' matters just as much to Trump. Getting Zelensky to sign on the dotted line is progress in itself, plays well to Trump's base at home, and puts pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin to come to the table.
So, the deal is a win for Zelensky because it gives the US a stake in an independent Ukraine. But even if Ukraine's critical mineral reserves turn out to be less valuable than expected, it may not matter to Trump.
Eve Warburton is research fellow, Department of Political and Social Change, and director, Indonesia Institute, Australian National University and Olga Boichak is senior lecturer in digital cultures, Australian Research Council DECRA fellow, University of Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AllAfrica
23 minutes ago
- AllAfrica
Defiant Zelensky throwing wrench in Trump-Putin peace meet
President Volodymyr Zelensky's maximalist position, supported by the UK, France and Germany, is at odds with public opinion in Ukraine. A new, dramatic Gallup Poll makes clear that Zelensky and his hardline clique don't represent what Ukrainians now want. Here is what Gallup reports: 'More than three years into the war, Ukrainians' support for continuing to fight until victory has hit a new low. In Gallup's most recent poll of Ukraine — conducted in early July — 69% say they favor a negotiated end to the war as soon as possible, compared with 24% who support continuing to fight until victory. This marks a nearly complete reversal from public opinion in 2022, when 73% favored Ukraine fighting until victory and 22% preferred that Ukraine seek a negotiated end as soon as possible.' Yet, Zelensky continues doing whatever he can to sabotage the Trump-Putin meeting on August 15 in Alaska and to behave as if Ukraine's army still has some hope of winning a war they are clearly losing. Zelensky is depending on European 'help' to win the day and stop the US from brokering a deal. But there are already signs that European resolve is breaking down. If Zelensky's formula is followed, Europe will need to send troops to Ukraine. A European military contingent is, theoretically, supposed to enforce a ceasefire, the other demand made by Zelensky and his European allies. The idea behind this is a sort of plan (one hesitates to call it that, but it is what it is) to get a cheap ceasefire deal, send in foreign troops and then restart the war against Russia. The problem with this surrealistic scenario is that there are no troops, or hardly any. The British-led attempt to assemble an army of the willing appears to have become an army of the unwilling. Only the UK and France have made a potential commitment, somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 soldiers each. No other country has agreed. Germany, which spends a lot of time acting like the big man in the parking lot, has offered zero troop support. Poland, one of the few European countries with a respectable-sized army, is not interested and does not want a conflict with Russia. Neither does Italy. As for the troublesome anti-Russian Baltic states, especially Estonia (which specializes in hating Russians), nothing. They need to keep their tiny under-equipped armies home for self-defense. The Estonian Defense Forces consists of 7,700 active personnel 7,700 of which 3,500 are conscripts. Meanwhile, some European states are cutting down aid to Ukrainians living on their territory, with Finland and Germany leading the way. Some don't want them at all, including Hungary, Poland and Italy. Nor do any of them have the cash needed to continue the war. They are stealing the profits from the seizure of Russians assets and sending them to Ukraine, violating international law since there is no declared belligerency that justifies the seizures. This helps them avoid reaching into their own finances, but only for a while. Doing this, of course, has consequences, and there will be a reckoning down the road. How so? Some in Europe want to renew trade with Russia in the future since American tariffs and Chinese competition are breaking their backs, coupled with excessively high energy prices (their fault entirely), and lots of self-defeating sanctions. When the time comes, some Europeans really need to trade with Russia: Germany and Italy are near the top of the list. Now consider this: if Trump and Putin start to work out a relationship, Europe will be on the outside looking in, mainly because they have taken an extreme Zelensky position on Ukraine. Trump is a trade maven. He will promote any deal with Russia by touting investment and technology sharing. Where does that leave the Germans or Italians or anyone else in Europe? Even more likely, US interest in the NATO alliance will continue to disintegrate. Why back Europe if it is undermining US strategic interests? If key European allies continue to try and undermine any Ukraine deal, Washington will see it as harming US national security. Zelensky, for his part, defies democratic norms. Not only does he not follow public opinion, but he sees to it that he keeps martial law in place, refuses to have elections and jails or exiles his opponents. During the worst of times for the British in World War II, with the loss of most of Europe, the retreat from Dunkirk and the Blitz on London, Britain never declared martial law, nor did they jail opposition politicians (other than some Nazis), attack minorities or close down churches they didn't like. Zelensky won't change direction. He will continue to try and undermine US-Russian negotiations. But Europe needs to rethink its support for a Zelensky-led Ukraine. It is digging a deep hole for its future. Stephen Bryen is a special correspondent to Asia Times and former US deputy undersecretary of defense for policy. This article, which originally appeared in his Substack newsletter Weapons and Strategy, is republished with permission.
AllAfrica
an hour ago
- AllAfrica
China's playbook for 90-day trade truce with US
The United States and China extended their trade truce by 90 days on Tuesday (August 12), a trade war ceasefire that will buy time for each to restructure their supply chains in case negotiations collapse in November. After US President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Monday extending the deadline for higher tariffs on China until November 10, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) issued a reciprocal statement saying it would suspend additional tariffs on US goods for 90 more days. Both sides said they would maintain 10% tariffs on each other's goods. However, the US will continue a 20% tariff on Chinese goods related to alleged fentanyl trafficking and 7 to 25% tariffs imposed in the 2019 trade war. This means that Chinese manufacturers need to pay tariffs as high as 55% on certain of their exports to the US. The MOFCOM said on Tuesday that China will extend for 90 days the suspension of measures under the Unreliable Entity List Working Mechanism, issued on April 4, and also suspend the measures issued on April 9. On April 4 and 9, the MOFCOM added 17 US entities to the Unreliable Entity List, prohibiting them from engaging in import and export activities related to China and from making new investments in the country. On January 2, it added 28 US companies to its export control list, prohibiting the export of dual-use items, including key critical minerals. The truce's extension was not unexpected. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on July 30 that the two sides would probably extend it for 90 days, pending Trump's final approval. 'China is like a multi-level chess game, because traditionally, our biggest economic rivals have been our allies,' Bessent told Fox News in an interview on Tuesday. 'China is our biggest economic rival and our biggest military rival. So we're solving for several variables here. What we are trying to do is to get to a more balanced trade.' He said that most outside observers believe China has the most imbalanced economy in modern times, overgeared on manufacturing rather than domestic consumption. He added that US and Chinese officials will discuss that imbalance in the coming months. He said that Chinese President Xi Jinping has invited Trump to visit China, and Trump has expressed a desire to meet with Xi. The meeting has not been confirmed. Bessnet said that although China has resumed shipping rare-earth magnets to the US, the US government is actively seeking to source rare earths elsewhere by investing in the Mountain Pass rare earth mine and working with six to seven smaller companies. Since Trump imposed reciprocal tariffs on all countries on April 2, tensions between the US and China have increased. A week later, the US imposed 145% tariffs on Chinese goods, while China retaliated with 125% tariffs on US goods. After officials from the two sides met in Geneva on May 12, in London on June 6-9 and in Stockholm on July 28-29, they agreed to de-escalate the situation, which global markets reacted to favorably. 'During the tariff war in the past three months, the biggest achievement is that both China and the US have clarified their respective demands and bottom lines,' Song Guoyou, deputy director at the Center for American Studies, Fudan University, told China's state-run Global Times in an interview. 'This has facilitated communication between the two sides towards further controlling the conflict,' he said. 'After three rounds of negotiations, the Sino-US trade tensions have temporarily eased,' said Liao Shuping, a senior researcher at the Bank of China Research Institute. 'Although China's exports to the US showed signs of recovery, they still face downward pressure.' Liao said that the fact that the US has recently reached agreements with some trading partners to increase tariffs and restrict their re-exports would create new pressure on Chinese exports to non-US markets. On July 2, the US and Vietnam reached a trade agreement under which the US will charge a 20% tariff on imports from Vietnam. However, Vietnam is required to pay a 40% tariff on goods deemed as 'transshipped' to the US. Reports from Vietnam indicate US criteria for what would be considered transshipment are unclear in their trade deal. In recent years, Vietnam has been the top choice for Chinese manufacturers to relocate their factories. These manufacturers send their goods from China to Vietnam for 'origin washing,' simply by changing product labels to 'Made in Vietnam' before shipping them to the US. Some may set up assembly factories in Vietnam, but still, a majority of their components come from China. Liu Yue, deputy director at China's Academy of Macroeconomic Research (AMR), and Yuan Qian, a researcher at the AMR, co-wrote an article on August 6 stating that China encourages and supports Chinese manufacturers to move overseas. They said the relocation should be of high quality, meaning that manufacturers should localize their workforce, understand local markets, and invest in research and development. They said China's professional groups and industry associations should also support companies going overseas. China's state media widely circulated Liu's article. Zheng Yijun, the general manager of a Chongqing-based logistics firm, told state-owned Phoenix TV that when the US imposed 145% tariffs on imports from China, many Chinese manufacturers accelerated their plans to move to Vietnam, creating new logistics demand for his firm. 'Although the United States' reciprocal tariff is now 10% on Chinese goods, exporters still need to pay an extra 30-45% tariff,' he said, adding that logistics demand to Vietnam from Chinese firms has remained strong. A Guangdong-based columnist says that many Chinese manufacturers are reducing headcounts and wages as they either relocate outside of China or receive fewer orders than in the past. He said many workers' salaries have been cut in half to 3,000 yuan (US$418) a month, as many Chinese manufacturers have relocated their factories overseas. The writer says living on that lower salary in the city is very difficult. Read: Trump's 100% chip tariff to exempt everyone but China
RTHK
3 hours ago
- RTHK
Trump seeks extension of control over DC police
Trump seeks extension of control over DC police Donald Trump says he can declare a "national emergency" to extend federal control over Washington DC's police force. Photo: Reuters US President Donald Trump said on Wednesday he would ask the Republican-controlled Congress to extend federal control of Washington's city police force beyond 30 days, escalating his campaign to exert presidential power over the nation's capital. Trump also asserted that any congressional action could serve as a model for other US cities. He has previously threatened to expand his efforts to other Democratic-run cities such as Chicago that he claims have failed to address crime. It was not clear how Trump's takeover of Washington's Metropolitan Police Department could be replicated elsewhere. In seizing control on Monday, Trump took advantage of a federal law, the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, that permits the president to do so under emergency circumstances for up to 30 days. There is no basis for Trump to attempt similar takeovers in other cities, according to John P Fishwick Jr, a former federal prosecutor in Virginia, who said that Washington represents a "unique situation." Trump also announced on Monday that he was deploying 800 National Guard troops to the city, a tactic he employed in Los Angeles in June when he mobilised thousands of Guard soldiers and US Marines over the objections of state and local officials in response to protests over his administration's immigration raids. Separately, hundreds of federal officers and agents from more than a dozen agencies have fanned out across Washington in recent days. Trump has painted a picture of the US capital as a city gripped by a wave of crime and pervasive homelessness, despite both federal and city crime statistics showing that violent crime has declined precipitously since a spike in 2023. Trump said on Wednesday that the city's crime statistics were a "total fraud," without providing evidence, and that the public would soon see a "big change" in the figures. US Attorney General Pam Bondi told FOX Noticias that officials were looking into whether the city's statistics last year were manipulated. (Reuters)
