The US is engaging Ukraine in a discussion about a broader agreement on subsoil. What are the political motives for this and how should Kyiv react - in the material of "Apostrophe".
The framework agreement on minerals was supposed to be signed by the presidents of Ukraine and the United States, Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump, during the infamous meeting on February 28. However, due to a dispute in the Oval Office, this did not happen. In early March, the Ukrainian leader said that he was ready to sign the agreement with the United States. It was expected that the signing would take place on March 11 in Saudi Arabia during a meeting of delegations of both countries in Jeddah. However, even after this meeting, the document remained in draft status.
In the end, Ukraine received from the US a “full-fledged” version of a broader agreement on “economic partnership”. Zelensky confirmed the Americans’ refusal from the framework and the proposal to immediately conclude a full agreement. People’s Deputy Yaroslav Zheleznyak reported that he had received the text of such a document from representatives of the Ukrainian government. According to him, such a wording is unacceptable. “ I’ll say right away that this is not the final (!!!) document. And I hope that the Ukrainian side will demand and achieve significant changes to it. But the text that I saw is downright HORRIBLE ,” he wrote.
The version that Zheleznyak writes about differs from the version of the framework agreement that was published in the media and agreed upon by the parties - Trump returned to charging Ukraine a debt for the assistance provided. Moreover, with interest. This is unacceptable, because the US actually developed its own military-industrial complex with the allocated military aid funds. “ The fund’s money is being taken abroad. If suddenly, for some reason, something did not arrive on our part, we pay extra. The US contribution - we have already been provided with assistance since 2022 ,” he noted.
Also, according to the People's Deputy, the document provides for the creation of a fund management body of five people, with three portfolios belonging to the United States with full veto power, and changes to the agreement are possible only with the consent of the Americans. At the same time, the People's Deputy clarified that the future Fund will be formed not at the expense of funds from the sale of minerals, not from the profits of companies that extract them, but at the expense of part of the rent, license fees. In general, it seems that Ukraine is giving its assets to external management in order to pay off the debt, without receiving anything in return. The condition according to which the debt to the United States must be paid on time looks especially cynical, because an annual increase of the amount by 4% is provided.
Why Trump is promoting a new deal
Attempts to involve Russia in a peace dialogue have shown that the Kremlin wants to continue the war. Perhaps Trump understands that he will have to continue supporting Kyiv, and wants to explain to his voters that he will do this not like his predecessor, but for the benefit of his people. However, according to this logic, signing a framework agreement would be enough, Oleksandr Merezhko, the head of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Foreign Policy and Interparliamentary Cooperation, tells Apostrophe. Instead, the new agreement involves a lengthy process before signing.
“ He offers a new offer, a new proposal. But if we are talking about an international treaty, then this is a very long story. Because we need to form a delegation, we need to discuss, include specialists from our side, not only lawyers, but also economists, because this is about the country's resources. The piquancy is especially in the fact that there is Article 13 of the Constitution regarding subsoil, about the country's natural wealth, which belongs to the people. This is a very serious matter that requires resolving many aspects... There are examples of international conventions, treaties that have been prepared for almost decades. I am not saying that such a long process is needed here, but it takes months or even years ,” the People's Deputy noted.
At the same time, the publication's interlocutor emphasized: if it comes to ownership of natural resources, then a referendum is needed, according to the Constitution. " Concluding an international treaty is half the battle. Because a treaty creates rights and obligations for states. It does not have direct effect in national law. In order for such an effect to be direct, it is necessary to create the so-called implementing legislation. And this is also a story. It can be quite long ," Merezhko added.
That is, the signing of the document next week, as stated by US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant, is unlikely. Perhaps Trump needs a discussion about a new agreement to have arguments for his party members, voters, saying that we wanted to offer Ukraine peace, and they are ungrateful, so let's reset relations with Russia. " If America's motivation is to conclude an agreement on some kind of access to Ukrainian natural resources in one form or another, then it is always possible to negotiate, make concessions, compromises are reasonable. If America's goal is simply to expose Ukraine as non-negotiable, which must be stepped over for the sake of relations with Russia, and the main goal is to reset relations with Russia, nothing will help here ," political scientist Petro Oleschuk believes.
Such an agreement, he continues, even if signed, would never pass the Verkhovna Rada.
Conditions of Ukraine
Ukraine offered its partners to jointly invest in the extraction and processing of its minerals back in October last year - this was one of the points of the Victory Plan. It was supposedly written specifically for Trump. However, the wording of the agreement that Zheleznyak made public cannot suit Kyiv. Perhaps the White House understands this. “ I do not rule out that this is part of the bargaining process, where the bar is raised to the maximum in order to get something less ,” Ivan Us, an expert on foreign economics, comments to Apostrophe.
Moreover, the prospects for implementing what is described in the agreement are small. “ Now, even already operating enterprises with active production, which have been developed for decades, such as the enterprises of the Poltava Mining and Processing Complex and neighboring ones, - even their production is currently unprofitable, and what can we say about mythical minerals that need to be explored and developed ,” financial analyst Ivan Uglyanytsya is sure.
Ukraine is interested, first of all, in the analysis of available resources, which also requires investment, says Ivan Us. In addition, cooperation with the USA can be useful for both sides in confronting their enemies. “ We have a problem in global pressure on Russia - it has traditionally happened that in Ukraine, even before the full-scale war, there was raw material for titanium production, then this raw material went to Russia, in Russia titanium was produced and then it went to the USA for the aircraft industry. Therefore, Ukraine needs to exclude Russia from this chain. That is, we have raw materials, in the USA - the consumer, the actual titanium producer must be located either in the USA, or in Ukraine, or in a country friendly to the USA and Ukraine - so that Russia is not present, as well as the competitor of the USA - China , ”the expert is convinced.
“ It would be very good for Ukraine to receive real investments from the US in mineral extraction, and not just conclude an agreement on the distribution of profits from mining,” Dmytro Churin, director of the analytical department of the investment company Eavex Capital, noted to Apostrophe. “Mineral extraction, especially rare earth metals, is billions, tens of billions of dollars of investment. Of course, it is better to do this with investors' money, we do not have such big money ,” financial expert Taras Kozak notes to the publication.
Instead, the investment fund's funds, according to the current version, will mainly go to repay the debt. " If it had security guarantees, then it would be possible to make some concessions somewhere in terms of the economic part of the agreement. It looks like there are no security guarantees yet, so this should be an economically beneficial agreement for Ukraine... We would like this to apply to new projects, because we already make money on old ones. New projects, new investments, new technologies ," Kozak emphasized.
So Kyiv faces a serious task - to change the terms of the agreement without spoiling relations with the White House. This is a real challenge for Ukrainian diplomacy.
