Ukraine completes steps for minerals deal with US, deputy prime minister says
Ukraine has concluded procedures for implementation of a deal with the United States on exploiting minerals, including the operation of an investment fund, the country's first deputy prime minister said on Tuesday.
Yulia Svyrydenko gave few details of the latest step in securing approval of the accord, promoted by US President Donald Trump, but it was known that two additional documents were drawn up as part of its implementation.
'Another milestone on the path to launching the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund: Ukraine has completed all necessary procedures on schedule,' Svyrydenko wrote in English on social media.
She said a note certifying completion of the process had been handed to interim US Charge d'Affaires Julie Davis.
'These are equal agreements — forward-looking, aligned with Ukraine's national interests, and structured to ensure investment flows exclusively into Ukraine's recovery and growth,' Svyrydenko wrote.
After weeks of tough negotiations following a shouting match between President Volodymyr Zelensky and Trump in the Oval Office, Svyrydenko signed the minerals agreement in Washington and it was ratified last week by the Ukrainian parliament.
After that vote, Svyrydenko described the accord as 'not merely a legal construct — it is the foundation of a new model of interaction with a key strategic partner.'
The minerals agreement hands the United States preferential access to new Ukrainian minerals deals and sets up the investment fund, which could be used for the reconstruction of Ukraine for the first 10 years.
Ukraine also sees the deal as a way to unlock supplies of new US weapons, especially additional Patriot air defense systems it sees as vital to protect against Russian air attacks.
Zelensky hailed the reworked draft of the agreement as a marked improvement over earlier versions that some critics in Ukraine had denounced as 'colonial.' The accord also acknowledges Ukraine's bid to join the European Union.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
41 minutes ago
- Al Arabiya
Where is Iran headed after the ceasefire
On Monday, US President Donald Trump announced an Israel-Iran ceasefire, after 12 days of intense escalation between the warring sides. The peak of that escalation came when US forces struck three sensitive Iranian nuclear sites – Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan – with precision strikes. These three sites are considered the backbone of Iran's nuclear program. For all the latest headlines, follow our Google News channel online or via the app. Amid the flurry of analyses, this announcement appeared as a pivotal moment that warrants pause and reflection – not just as a step to de-escalate tensions, but also to understand Iran's place within the complex regional and global landscape. Since Khomeini's revolution in 1979, Iran has presented itself as the center of resistance forces in the Middle East. It built a political narrative based on standing firm against external pressures and supported anti-Western movements. It began with the hostage-taking of 52 American embassy staff in Tehran for 444 days and went on to directly target American interests in the region, all while chanting anti-US slogans and labeling it the 'Great Satan.' This approach undeniably granted Tehran influence within certain radical circles in the region, but on the flip side, it placed Iran in ongoing confrontation with its regional and global surroundings, leading to growing isolation – an isolation whose greatest cost was borne by the Iranian people. American writer Thomas Friedman wrote in The New York Times two days ago that Iran chose from the beginning to align itself with the 'resistance axis' that thrives on conflict, in contrast to other regional powers that bet on development, integration, and prosperity. While Tehran may have made some military progress, Friedman argues that the losses it has sustained – economically, socially, and diplomatically – far outweigh any gains. While internal burdens piled up inside Iran, neighboring moderate states were achieving growth indicators and strengthening their diplomatic presence as influential players on the global stage. Iran's insistence on its nuclear program stands as one of the clearest manifestations of the path it has chosen. The program is no longer just a subject of international suspicion – it has become a real threat to Iran itself before even threatening its neighbors. Today, the world no longer views nuclear capabilities as symbols of deterrence or admiration, but rather with suspicion – especially when such capabilities are tied to a vague political ideology and tense regional relations. How can a country demand the trust of the international community while simultaneously raising the level of threat to such heights? And how can anyone feel assured about a nation that operates under the logic that the only guarantee for survival is the pursuit of destructive tools? The truth is, the core issue does not lie in the nuclear program itself as much as it lies in the mentality behind it – a mentality focused on amassing power rather than pursuing development, seeking deterrence more than integration, and fearing its own people more than its adversaries. Unless there is a genuine transformation in this mindset, there will be little difference between the end of one war and the beginning of another, because the core of its political thinking will remain unchanged. Today, development is no longer a secondary option – it has become the most important benchmark for political legitimacy and the compass by which nations measure their ability to progress and maintain stability. Iran possesses the necessary resources to become a powerful regional economic force – if it chooses that path. But this will not happen without deep internal introspection and a redefinition of what 'power' means within its political discourse. The ceasefire, as announced by Trump, is not a victory for any side so much as it is a moment of reckoning. Tehran can either seize it as a beginning for a calm inward shift, or remain trapped in cycles of escalation and retreat, of withdrawal and suspicion – of both external and internal matters alike. At this crossroads, the true weight of nations is not measured by the number of ballistic missiles they possess, but by the clarity of their vision and their capacity to foster hope. Yes, the Iranian revolution has endured for 46 years, but the seismic blows its expansionist projects have suffered in the past two years reveal that this endurance is turning into a burden. What remains of the revolution should, ideally, be translated into a nation-building project – not into further siege and paranoia. Today, countries are measured by what they deliver to their people… not by what fear they instill in others.
Argaam
41 minutes ago
- Argaam
China confirms trade deal with US
China confirmed today, June 27, details of a trade deal with the US, after reaching the London framework earlier this month, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement. Washington would lift "restrictive measures" while Beijing will "review and approve" items under export controls, AFP reported, citing the statement. "It is hoped that the United States and China will meet each other halfway," a spokesperson for the commerce ministry said in a statement.
Arab News
42 minutes ago
- Arab News
UN bids to salvage global development summit after US boycott
MADRID/LONDON: Scores of world leaders will be sweltering in the summer sun of southern Spain next week at a once-a-decade United Nations development financing summit aimed at curbing global poverty, disease and the worst-case threats of climate change. Despite the scorching temperatures, though, a major chill looms over the event – the decision early this month by the United States, traditionally the world's largest aid giver and key finance provider, not to show up. UN countries want to close a $4 trillion-a-year funding gap they now estimate prevents the developing world achieving the organization's Sustainable Development Goals that range from cutting infant death rates to minimizing global warming. Critics say the promises at the heart of the conference – called the 'Seville Commitment' – are nowhere near bold enough. The measures, agreed by consensus after a year of tough negotiations, include tripling multilateral lending capacity, debt relief, a push to boost tax-to-GDP ratios to at least 15 percent, and shifting special IMF money to countries that need it most. The run-up, however, has been marred by the US decision to withdraw over what it said was the crossing of a number of its red lines, including the push to triple development bank lending, change tax rules and the use of the term 'gender' in summit wording. The European Union only joined the summit with reservations, particularly over how debt is discussed within the UN. Speaking to reporters this week, UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed described Washington's boycott as 'regrettable,' especially after its 'catastrophic' recent aid cuts that she said had cost lives and livelihoods. Speaking alongside officials from summit host Spain and Zambia, which has helped organize it, she said the final outcome document agreed reflected both 'ambition and realism' and that the UN would try to re-engage the US afterwards. Remy Rioux, chief executive officer of the French Development Agency, said Washington's withdrawal had not been a total surprise given Donald Trump's views. The hope is that agreements next week will allow bolder action at the UN climate talks in Brazil in November. 'We will push for the new framework... (and) its operationalization from Seville to Belem,' he added, referring to the Brazilian city that will host COP30. Aid in decline Other measures to be announced include multilateral lenders automatically giving vulnerable countries the option to insert repayment break clauses into their loans in case of hurricane, drought or flood. Another buzz phrase will be a 'Global SDR playbook' – a plan where the wealthiest countries rechannel the IMF's reserve-like Special Draw Rights they hold to the multilateral banks, who then leverage them as capital in order to lend more. Campaigners warn that it will fall far short of what is needed, especially as more than 130 countries now face critically high debt levels and many spend more on repayments than on health or education. Aid and support from rich countries, who themselves have rising debts, is dropping too. In March, the US slashed more than 80 percent of programs at its USAID agency following federal budget cuts spearheaded by billionaire Elon Musk. Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden have all made cuts in recent years too. The OECD projects a 9 percent–17 percent drop in net official development assistance (ODA) in 2025, following a 9 percent decline in 2024. It looks set to hit the poorest countries hardest: bilateral ODA to least developed countries and sub-Saharan Africa may fall by 13-25 percent and 16-28 percent respectively, the OECD estimates, and health funding could drop by up to 60 percent from its 2022 peak. So what would be a good outcome in Seville, especially given the US pull-out? 'We should make sure we are not backtracking at this point,' said Orville Grey at the International Institute for Sustainable Development, referring to funding commitments. 'We should at least remain stable.'
