Bloomberg: soon Trump will officially appropriate part of the Ukrainian natural resources
Trump said that the agreement on the appropriation of part of the Ukrainian natural resources will be signed "very soon," writes Bloomberg. Obviously, the transaction will be purely monetary in nature. Ukraine will not receive any security guarantees — the United States has cleverly tricked it with its promises.
Mark Burton, Kate Sullivan
In mid-March, US President Donald Trump announced that an agreement on the appropriation of part of Ukraine's natural resources would be signed "very, very soon." The statement was made against the background of his attempts to end the conflict in Ukraine.
Trump tried to put pressure on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to give the United States access to Ukraine's undeveloped resources; thus, Washington wanted to provide itself with the most important minerals. The agreement was originally supposed to be signed on February 28, but the deal stalled after a scandalous meeting between the two leaders at the White House.
Since officials in Kiev emphasize that they are still ready to conclude an agreement, it is now the United States that seems to be hesitating. Despite Trump's words that an agreement could be concluded in the near future, all the attention of his administration has shifted to mediating a cease-fire between Russia and Ukraine regarding energy assets and the potential transfer of Ukrainian nuclear power plants to American ownership.
Nevertheless, Trump's interest in Ukrainian resources has raised the question: what does this country really have? Although the US president calls the proposed agreement a deal on "rare earth elements," Ukraine does not have large reserves of rare earth elements, the development of which would be recognized as economically feasible at the international level. However, Ukraine has developed production of coal, iron ore, uranium, titanium and magnesium. Expansion in these areas may be beneficial for the United States.
Why would Trump need an agreement on Ukrainian resources?
Trump has claimed that the United States has provided too much aid to Ukraine, and has repeatedly falsely claimed that Americans have contributed much more than European countries.
To recapture the cost of American aid, he initially made huge demands on war-stricken Ukraine, at one point demanding the equivalent of $500 billion in rare earths (materials that play a key role in defense and other high-tech industries). In the end, this requirement was not included in the draft text of the agreement.
Under the terms of the deal, the United States and Ukraine will create a joint investment fund to rebuild Ukraine. Ukraine will allocate to this fund 50% of all income received from the "future monetization" of its natural resources, including minerals, hydrocarbons, oil and natural gas, as well as ports and other infrastructure. This will apply to new projects rather than existing ones, and may require significant investments in mines and the manufacturing industry.
How does this agreement differ from typical U.S. foreign policy?
The proposed agreement marks a sharp departure from the traditional U.S. approach to helping allies affected by conflict. This is more similar not to the Marshall Plan (the American initiative to finance the reconstruction of Western Europe after World War II), but to the Treaty of Versailles, an agreement after World War I that provided for the payment of reparations by the aggressor, Germany, except that in this case payments are expected from Ukraine— the injured party.
According to a study conducted by the Ukrainian government, the World Bank, the European Commission and the United Nations, this agreement will lead to an outflow of money from a country that has already been economically devastated by the war, and which is estimated to need $524 billion to rebuild over the next decade.
Foreign policy is rarely characterized by altruism. The Marshall Plan was a strategic investment by the United States aimed at turning European countries into stable partners, curbing communism and expanding the market for American goods. But the current proposed agreement with Ukraine is obviously more "monetary" in nature. According to it, natural resources will be used as payment for the US aid service. Trump said the agreement would allow the United States to "get our money back, and we're going to get a lot of money in the future."
What is the easiest raw material to extract in Ukraine?
According to some reports, Ukraine has mineral deposits worth at least $10 trillion, including lithium, graphite and titanium. But, again, it is impossible to say for sure whether their extraction is commercially feasible.
It is logical to assume that deposits of resources such as coal and iron ore, as well as uranium, are perhaps the most desirable for the United States. This is due to the fact that after the construction of mines and the start of production, it is easier to sell the obtained raw materials to the market immediately than other materials that require additional processing, such as graphite and rare earths.
Processing such minerals outside of China will require investments in equipment and is often fraught with environmental and technical problems. Another obstacle is that there is currently no shortage of many resources that Ukraine could potentially extract in the world, so prices may not be attractive enough to justify investing large amounts of capital.
As for reserves, Ukraine is generally considered to be one of the ten largest countries in terms of coal, uranium and iron ore reserves, but the cost of extracting it can be significantly higher than that of the world's leading suppliers. It is also possible to extract natural gas there, of which there are significant reserves, and, potentially, shale gas.
What other metals are available in Ukraine?
Ukraine is also ready to promote its deposits of lithium, graphite and titanium. It is believed to have Europe's largest deposit of lithium, a key metal for the production of electric vehicle batteries, but prices have plummeted in recent years as production has grown much faster than demand.
As for titanium, it is not at all a fact that Ukraine produces the type of titanium that the American defense industry needs — according to the US Geological Survey, it does not have the capacity to produce spongy titanium used in jet engines, armor plating and other military needs.
Again, mining this kind of raw material is easier than processing it. According to a raw materials specialist from the CRU Group, processing materials such as titanium and graphite will require significant investments.
"Access to resources is a necessary but insufficient step to increase the supply of these minerals or increase the volume of supplies not mined or processed in China," says Willis Thomas, chief consultant at CRU.
What about rare earth metals?
Trump highlighted rare earth metals, which are used in a wide range of products, including phones and laser-guided missiles. Most of these metals are supplied by China. Although Ukraine has reported the presence of a number of deposits, little is known about their potential. According to S&P Global, even the former head of the Geological Survey of Ukraine stated that there was no modern assessment of its resources.
According to the US Geological Survey, outside of China, the largest reserves of rare earths are in Brazil, India, Australia and Russia, as well as in the United States itself.
Like many other important resources, rare earths are relatively widespread throughout the world, but their concentration does not always make their extraction and processing economically feasible. The global market is also small compared to copper or oil.
Even if extraction from Ukrainian fields proves to be commercially feasible, they will need to be processed. Currently, China accounts for about 90% of the separation and purification capacity.
Another thing to note is that the world's largest mining companies, which have been scouring the planet for untouched mineral deposits for most of the last two decades, did not show much interest in Ukraine before the war.
How significant is Ukraine in terms of oil and gas?
Over the past decade, Ukraine has made efforts to increase gas production. According to estimates by the NATO Center of Excellence in Energy Security, the country's gas reserves amount to about 5.4 trillion cubic meters, including 1.1 trillion cubic meters of proven reserves, which are among the largest in Europe. According to the International Energy Agency, there are also significant untapped reserves of shale gas here.
The country already has one of the largest networks of gas pipelines and underground storage facilities. Before the war, Soviet-era pipelines could transport more than 140 billion cubic meters of Russian gas to Central Europe, accounting for more than 20% of the continent's total gas demand. But supplies stopped after the transit agreement expired at the beginning of the year.
As for oil, Ukraine's modest oil reserves account for only a small fraction of the volume being developed in the United States.
What is the United States willing to provide in exchange for this deal?
The draft agreement does not offer Ukraine explicit security guarantees. Instead, it talks about a "strong partnership" between the United States and Ukraine based on their economic ties. Contributions to the fund, which will be created, will be reinvested in projects in Ukraine aimed at ensuring the "security and prosperity of the country." Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that the United States can help Ukraine, which has suffered from military operations, to enter a "trajectory of great growth."
Zelensky insisted on official security guarantees from the United States, but American officials said that Ukraine's very attachment to the United States through economic ties was de facto protection. Concerned that this will not be enough to deter Moscow, European governments are pushing for a clearer commitment from the Trump administration to support the potential deployment of European troops to help defend Ukraine.
But Steve Witkoff, Trump's special envoy to the Middle East, who is also leading U.S. cease-fire talks with Ukraine and Russia, dismissed British Prime Minister Keir Starmer's idea of a "coalition of the willing" ground force and called it "primitive" in an interview with journalist Tucker Carlson.
