The American side has handed over to Ukraine a new version of the agreement on minerals - today we can speak about this with confidence. Just as we can say with complete confidence that the proposed agreement is completely unprofitable for us. "Apostrophe" understood what the Donald Trump administration wants to impose on the Ukrainian people, and what we can oppose to its colonial plans.
The US has handed over to Ukraine a new version of the Reconstruction Investment Fund agreement, which in our country is called the minerals agreement or even the rare earth metals agreement.
The first to announce the appearance of the new version of the agreement was Yaroslav Zheleznyak, a People's Deputy of Ukraine, First Deputy Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Finance, Tax and Customs Policy.
According to the People's Deputy, the text of the document was submitted to the Ukrainian authorities for review on the last weekend of March. As for its content, according to him, it is not at all the same framework agreement that was planned to be signed in Washington on February 28, when the presidents of Ukraine and the United States, Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Donald Trump, had a heated argument on live television.
"This is a really big and very clear agreement. And it's not in our favor," Zheleznyak wrote on his Telegram channel. He added that the text of the agreement he saw "is downright terrifying."
The parliamentarian also outlined the main provisions of the agreement proposed (if not to say imposed) on us, the essence of which boils down to the fact that the US contribution to the aforementioned fund is the assistance that the United States provided to us on a free (as it seemed to us) basis after the Russian invasion, and also that the American side receives all the rights to manage the fund and its funds, while Ukraine receives only obligations without any rights and without any security guarantees, which the Ukrainian leadership has always insisted on.
Later, a more detailed analysis of the draft agreement was published on Facebook by public and political figure, former journalist, and Rada deputy Mustafa Nayem. In general, he confirmed earlier conclusions that under the terms of the agreement, if it enters into force in its current version, Ukraine will be completely without rights in this so-called Recovery Investment Fund.
Nayem also published the text of the draft agreement that the US had given to Ukraine for signing, which he has at his disposal. It is 55 pages of legal text in English, drawn up according to all the rules of corporate legal casuistry.
Earlier, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant expressed hope that the agreement would be signed this week, and US President Donald Trump, in his typical manner, stated that if his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky tries to withdraw from the agreement, "he will have big, big problems."
The right to be disenfranchised
However, let's get back to the deal itself.
The first thing to know is that, according to its terms, the Recovery Investment Fund is created under American corporate law, or more specifically, the corporate law of the American state of Delaware. This state is known for its flexible tax regime, thanks to which it has about one million registered corporations with a total population of about 900,000 people.
More importantly, the US will act as a General Partner in the fund, with all the associated rights to manage it and profit from its activities. The US will participate in the fund through the US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC). This corporation was established in late 2019 and operates mainly in poor countries.
Ukraine is assigned the role of a limited partner, which will not have the right to make any decisions - literally, at all.
" The General Partner has complete freedom - to create new companies, move assets, change regulations, reassess contributions, determine profitability and even change the agreement itself (with the approval of the DFC). Ukraine, for its part, transfers to the "Royalty Interest" fund - the right to a share of income from future projects. But the value of this asset, the accounting procedure, the volume of obligations and currency terms are determined by the same General Partner. All risks are on us, all levers are on him... Formally, we are a "partner", but without access to the steering wheel , " Mustafa Nayem described the essence of the agreement.
In the fund's board, the US will have three votes, Ukraine - two. That is, from the very beginning, the American side will have an unconditional advantage in making any decisions. Moreover, assuming that one of the American members of the board supports the Ukrainian participants, such a decision can still be blocked by the DFC, which will have the so-called "golden share", and in fact the right of veto.
Completely, and then...
There are probably no people in Ukraine today who would see any benefit in the agreement offered (or, more precisely, imposed) on us.
According to Taras Kozak, founder of the investment company "Univer", even a cursory acquaintance with the text of the agreement is enough to understand that this is an unequivocal betrayal.
"What do we get? Obligations, debts, fines if something goes wrong. There are no positive things ," the expert said in a comment to Apostrophe. " To a large extent, this is a surrender of sovereignty."
According to him, the Americans should have been sent far away with this agreement, but in the current situation we are heavily dependent on the US.
"Our dependence and understanding that Trump can hurt us forces the current Ukrainian authorities not to abandon him immediately, but to prepare some other versions, soften them, etc.," Kozak explained.
So now the ball, as they say, is on our side of the field.
"It all depends on what conditions we will include in this agreement, what conditions we will defend. Because if we simply accept what the other side has prescribed for us, we will certainly get a certain number of negative factors ," international economist Ihor Garbaruk told the publication. " The strong side should be with our government. There should be people there who are really capable of intellectually and morally defending our interests."
And Ukraine's proposals, it must be admitted, may turn out to be very radical.
"It is clear that we must present our options, where there will be no debt, no obligations of Ukraine, nothing that contradicts our European integration, that is, completely rewrite this crap ," investment banker and financial analyst Serhiy Fursa told Apostrophe. " This agreement is not about investments - it is an attempt to put us on the "meter", so it is in no way acceptable to us."
Our interest
What should be in the agreement for Ukraine to sign it?
"The benefit for Ukraine is financial, the benefit for Ukraine is investment, and the benefit for Ukraine is resource," says Ihor Harbaruk.
The agreement must include security guarantees, adds Taras Kozak.
"They may be written in different ways, but we must feel that the United States fits in for us and will help us in the security direction ," the expert says. " Second, I would like this to be a partnership, not parasitizing on Ukrainian problems - the contribution of funds by the United States or some companies from the United States or even non-American ones, so that it can be considered a partnership: we contribute the funds that are written there (in the draft agreement), and the United States, or companies that will be determined, must also contribute money, technology, and assume some obligations."
In turn, Mustafa Nayem believes that it is necessary to change the management structure of the fund, namely to ensure Ukraine's equal representation on the fund's board, to give us the right to make key decisions. In addition, to limit Ukraine's liability in terms of amounts, terms, and types of obligations.
"Abolish or clearly limit the right of "first hand" (the American side) to projects and resources - it should not go beyond the fund's investments. Revise the provisions on taxation, capital withdrawal and currency control - the state should retain the right to regulate these areas on its territory. Provide Ukraine with full access to information: reporting, audit, documentation, primary data - everything related to its contribution and projects on its territory. Establish that the main part of the fund's investments is directed to Ukraine - this should be legally confirmed, not simply declared," Nayem added to his list of necessary changes.
However, there is no certainty that the Americans will agree to even some serious changes. So our task now is to stall for time as long as possible.
"The geopolitical question here is: will we be able to 'dance' around this agreement - submit any changes, new versions, until Trump breaks off relations with Putin ," explains Taras Kozak. " It's a matter of time: what will come first - Putin's conflict with Trump or Trump's conflict with Ukraine due to not signing this agreement."
