‘We need to get the U.S. back on track:' Ukrainian businesses, economists react to mineral deal failure

Yahoo

02-03-2025

An agreement on Ukraine's natural resources collapsed after a heated argument in the Oval Office on Feb. 28 between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and U.S. President Donald Trump and his Vice President JD Vance, casting doubt on the deal's future. Following weeks of tough negotiations, Kyiv and Washington eventually came to an agreement on Ukraine's critical minerals, oil, gas, and infrastructure. After the Trump Administration dropped some of Kyiv's major objections to earlier versions of the deal, the Zelensky administration said it was ready to move forward with the agreement, despite the absence of security guarantees.
That all fell apart after Zelensky traveled to Washington to sign the agreement in what was supposed to be a first step in jointly developing Ukraine's resources. Instead, a press conference descended into Vance and Trump berating Zelensky, ending with the Ukrainian president being escorted out of the White House without an agreement in hand. While Trump and his VP's tirade against the Ukrainian president sets a firm wedge between the allies, Ukrainian businessmen and economists do not believe all is lost. Ukraine is still ready to offer up its resources for American investment, meaning another round of negotiations is possible once emotions cool off, they say. 'While political messaging might shift, the core economic and business relationships between the two countries remain resilient,' Hennadiy Chyzhykov, president of the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce, told the Kyiv Independent.
Read also: Kremlin says perceived US foreign policy shift aligns with its 'vision'
The resources deal has been a rough road littered with controversies. Trump's initial demands would have given Washington as much control over Ukraine's main sources of revenue as the Ukrainian government. Critics accused the U.S. of offering a colonial-style deal. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz slammed Trump for being 'selfish.' Throughout the weeks of talks, Zelensky reiterated he wouldn't give up Ukraine's resources without security guarantees, while Trump labelled Zelensky 'a dictator,' seemingly in response to his unwillingness to sign the agreement. The last agreement, dated Feb. 25, still didn't offer any guarantees for protection against Russian aggression, but it did promise a more equal economic partnership to develop Ukraine's resources. Many in Ukraine were cautiously optimistic that it could work out, funneling much-needed capital into Ukraine. Following the drama in Washington, the Kyiv Independent spoke to Ukraine's business community to get their take on the fate of the deal and U.S.-Ukraine relations.
What we are seeing now is a phase of recalibration in U.S.- Ukraine relations. While political debates and shifts in messaging can create uncertainty, strategic agreements — especially those related to critical resources — are rarely abandoned overnight. The U.S. and Ukraine both recognize the mutual benefits of energy and resource cooperation, and I expect that discussions will continue with an adjusted framework, potentially involving more European and private sector stakeholders.
Ukraine's resource potential remains immense, and the global demand for critical minerals is only growing. While a slowdown in negotiations with the U.S. could momentarily delay some opportunities, it also opens the door for broader diversification. Ukraine is actively engaging with European and Asian partners, and this moment may encourage a more balanced approach — ensuring that we leverage multiple partnerships rather than relying too heavily on any single agreement.
The U.S.-Ukraine relationship has proven to be resilient despite changes in political leadership and diplomatic challenges. It is important to separate political rhetoric from long-term strategic interests — support for Ukraine, whether military, economic, or political, remains a bipartisan priority for many in Washington.It's also worth noting that international relations are dynamic. Moments of tension often lead to more structured and sustainable agreements in the long run. This is not a breakdown but rather a recalibration of expectations and priorities.
The most important thing is that discussions are ongoing, stakeholders are engaged, and there is a shared interest in de-escalation and finding mutually beneficial solutions.
We urgently need to develop a roadmap on how to fix the situation we all find ourselves in. Neither Ukraine nor the Trump administration has benefited from this, only the war criminal (Russian President Vladimir) Putin. It is better to sign this (resources) agreement as soon as possible to show that Ukraine is ready for any kind of investment. If the U.S. president needs this deal to "sell" it to his MAGA base, we are okay with this. But we need real investments and economic cooperation.
However, this deal has nothing to do with a real peace process. It is necessary to define the terms of this peace agreement that will meet the demands of Ukraine and international law. Everyone has to be on the same page — the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Ukraine, with the Russians on the other side of the aisle.We need to undertake enormous efforts to get the U.S. back on track.The president of Ukraine, together with our friends and partners from the EU and the U.K., should send a letter to the U.S. administration clearly defining the red lines that Ukraine will never accept.I would strongly recommend that our European friends make the terms of the peace deal framework public. We must clearly see what red lines are being set by the European Union and Ukraine. Ukraine will never accept any kind of legalization of any territorial concessions. Ukraine will never accept any disarmament.
We need to work out in detail the issue of NATO and our membership perspective. We can discuss the timeframe of this, but this is the ultimate goal of Ukraine. These red lines should be clearly set in a joint statement by the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine and sent to the White House.
Read also: Ukraine war latest: Europe developing 'coalition of the willing' to back ceasefire in Ukraine, Starmer says
There were, unfortunately, no security guarantees in the resources agreement, but it was a step in the right direction. So I was really upset and disappointed. I don't feel it's the end. I believe that a reasonable second round should be prepared.
From the business point of view, I believe that U.S. Investment will help to develop the country like it did previously with South Korea, Japan, and Singapore.We should sign the resources agreement. It will be the first step. But nowadays it's much more difficult because it's more emotional. For Zelensky, the security question is much more important, but this pragmatic approach from the Trump administration is now prevailing. Ukraine could have a lot of interest both from European and U.S. investment after the war and could be one of the hottest places on the planet if it is clear that the war is stoppedI still think it's in America's interest to be on the Ukrainian side, and I think we should find a way to save Trump and Zelensky's faces and relaunch this relationship. It's very important for Ukraine.
Emotionally, this (dispute) was incredibly unpleasant. Of course, we are all capable of putting emotions aside, but a conversation that starts with a sarcastic question like "Don't you own a suit?" is hard to call constructive or respectful.
Ukraine considers the United States a crucial ally, and we are deeply grateful to the American people and authorities at all levels for the immense support they have provided us over the years. Truth and justice must prevail; if the outcome is different, we will have to acknowledge that we are living in a world entirely different from the one we believed we inhabited. I am confident that we, along with European leaders and the United States, have the wisdom and strength to stand on the side of justice.
I won't claim to have deep expertise to fully assess the resources agreement, but as far as I can judge, its main value lies in the declaration of the United States' intent to continue supporting Ukraine, also within the framework of business interests. This is an important agreement, but it is a framework one and depends entirely on the relationships and goodwill of the parties.It could become a more powerful tool for Ukraine's protection only if hundreds, if not thousands, of further negotiations are successful and satisfactory for both sides, hypothetically leading someday to something more concrete in establishing a strong, long-term, and fair peace.
The discussion (on Feb. 28) immediately went in a direction that does not suggest any positive steps moving forward. Nevertheless, Ukraine is still ready to sign the agreement — peace is what we need the most.
Read also: Italy, UK can help mediate Zelensky-Trump dispute, Meloni says
Subscribe to the Newsletter
Ukraine Business Roundup
Subscribe
We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.