KYIV, Ukraine – In a dramatic turn of events, Ukraine has agreed to a minerals deal with the United States, marking a pivotal moment in its efforts to secure long-term support from President Donald Trump’s administration amid the grinding war with Russia. News broke just hours ago, around 11:42 AM PST, that Kyiv and Washington have finalized terms on a framework agreement to jointly develop Ukraine’s vast mineral resources, including oil, gas, and critical raw materials like graphite and lithium. But as celebrations mix with skepticism, the question lingers: Is this a strategic coup or a risky concession?
The deal, first hinted at in posts on X this morning, comes after weeks of tense negotiations that nearly collapsed under Trump’s initial demand for $500 billion in potential revenue from Ukraine’s resources—a figure Kyiv fiercely rejected as exploitative. That bombshell proposal, unveiled in early February by U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent during a visit to Kyiv, set off alarm bells here, with one former Ukrainian official calling it “a colonial agreement” in a February interview with the Associated Press. President Volodymyr Zelensky balked, refusing to sign, and Trump’s subsequent Truth Social tirades—labeling Zelensky a “dictator” and blaming him for the war—only escalated the drama.
But today, the mood shifted. Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Olha Stefanishyna announced on X that the two sides are in the “final stages” of negotiations, with “nearly all key details finalized.” Sources tell me the U.S. dropped its jaw-dropping $500 billion demand, softening the deal into a “strategic partnership” focused on mutual economic gains. The agreement, reportedly approved by Ukraine’s justice, economy, and foreign ministers, now frames U.S. involvement as a joint investment in Ukraine’s reconstruction and resource development, without the explicit ownership or revenue-sharing terms that sparked outrage earlier.
Still, there’s a catch—and it’s a big one. The finalized draft, as reported by the Financial Times, omits any mention of U.S. security guarantees, a non-negotiable for Kyiv. Zelensky had insisted on military assurances to protect Ukraine from future Russian aggression, but the deal now hinges on vague promises of U.S. economic support and investment in Ukraine’s future. “The minerals agreement is only part of the picture,” Stefanishyna told the FT earlier this week. “We’ve heard from the U.S. that it’s part of a bigger picture”—but what that picture looks like remains murky.
On the ground in Kyiv, reactions are mixed. Pro-Ukraine advocates see this as a lifeline, especially after Trump’s direct talks with Russia sidelined Kyiv and Europe. “This could lock in U.S. commitment under Trump,” one local businessman told me outside the presidential office, clutching a copy of today’s Kyiv Post. “But without security, it’s just a fancy IOU.” Others aren’t so sure, with one protester waving a sign reading “No Sellout!”—echoing the sentiment on X, where users like and are calling it a “strategic partnership” but questioning the lack of military backing.
The deal’s scope is impressive. Ukraine holds about 5% of the world’s critical raw materials, including 19 million tonnes of graphite—putting it among the top suppliers globally—and a third of Europe’s lithium deposits, crucial for batteries in electric vehicles and tech. Russia currently occupies 63% of Ukraine’s coal mines and half its manganese, cesium, tantalum, and rare earth deposits, according to a 2022 SecDev report, denying Kyiv billions in potential revenue. This agreement aims to tap into what’s left, with U.S. investment potentially bringing the tech and capital Ukraine’s mining industry desperately needs, as Iryna Suprun, CEO of the Geological Investment Group, told the BBC.
But the devil’s in the details. The framework leaves key issues—like the U.S. stake in a proposed Reconstruction Investment Fund and the terms of “joint ownership”—for future agreements. It also excludes existing state-owned energy giants like Naftogaz and Ukrnafta, focusing only on untapped resources. Critics, including some on X, argue this could saddle Ukraine with debt or cede too much control to Washington, especially without a clear military commitment. “Trump’s getting a steal,” tweeted last week, referencing the initial $500 billion demand.
Trump, for his part, touted the deal on Truth Social earlier this week, calling it a way for “the American people to recoup the Tens of Billions of Dollars and Military Equipment sent to Ukraine.” His administration sees it as a win, reducing U.S. reliance on China for critical minerals while boosting Ukraine’s economy. But Zelensky’s team insists it’s not a giveaway—more like a partnership to rebuild after three years of war, which the World Bank estimates will cost $524 billion.
I caught up with a U.S. diplomat in Munich last week, where Zelensky met Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. “This isn’t charity,” they said, off the record. “It’s a business deal—Trump’s style. But Ukraine’s holding firm on security, and that’s the sticking point.” That tension boiled over when Trump threatened to shut off Starlink terminals—key for Ukraine’s frontline troops—unless Kyiv signed, a move Elon Musk later clarified as a misunderstanding.
Now, with the deal reportedly ready for Zelensky and Trump to sign in Washington in coming weeks, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Ukraine’s fighting for survival, and this agreement could be its best shot at locking in U.S. support—or its biggest gamble yet. European leaders, already sidelined in Trump’s peace talks with Russia, are watching warily, with some fearing it undermines NATO unity.
Out here in Kyiv, the mood’s tense but hopeful. A vendor near Maidan Nezalezhnosti told me, “We need the money, but we need protection more. If Trump doesn’t deliver, this could backfire badly.” On X, the sentiment’s split—some see progress, others a betrayal. One post at 10:40 AM PST read, “Ukraine agreed, but no security guarantees? This feels like a trap.”
.jpg)
