kyiv concluded a breakthrough with Washington on the management of mineral resources, an agreement that not only solidified US-UKRAINE economic ties but also fueled political tensions between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky weeks.
The agreement, confirmed by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice of Ukraine, Olha Stefanishyna, in an interview with the Financial Times on February 25, marks a significant change in the economic strategy of Ukraine while it seeks to take advantage of its mineral wealth to guarantee long -term financial stability. Zelensky’s office has also confirmed the Kyiv independence agreement.
While Ukraine also presented the agreement as a step towards strengthening links with the United States, many experts think that the agreement is largely biased in favor of Washington, which raises concerns concerning the sovereignty of Ukraine on its own natural resources.
Register For TEKEDIA Mini-MBA Edition 16 (February 10 – May 3, 2025)) Today for early reductions.
Tekedia Ai in Masterclass Business open registration.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-INivest in large world startups.
Register become a better CEO or director with CEO program and director of Tekedia.
This evolution comes as Ukraine faces an intimidating economic challenge: the estimated cost of reconstruction and the resumption of the large -scale invasion of Russia has now reached its failure of $ 524 billion during the Next decade, according to a joint report from the government of Ukraine, the World Bank, the European Commission and the United Nations. The scale of destruction – affecting key sectors such as housing, energy, transport and trade – has left Ukraine in an urgent need for financial aid and massive investment.
An agreement that promotes the United States?
In a previous proposal from Trump, Ukraine would contribute to the fund until contributions reach the sum of $ 500 billion. The United States would provide a long-term financial commitment to the development of a “stable and economically prosperous Ukraine”. But Zelenskiy refused to sign the agreement, kyiv Protestant that he had received much less than that of American aid and the agreement did not have security guarantees in Ukraine.
Under the final version of the mineral agreement, Ukraine will establish a sovereign fund, contributing 50% of the products of the future monetization of mineral resources belonging to the State, including oil, gas and related logistics .
These income will be used to invest in projects in Ukraine. However, the agreement specifically excludes the resources that already contribute to the state budget, such as those controlled by Ukraine State Energy Companies Naftogaz and Ukrnaftta.
A key discord is that, although the fund is managed jointly by Ukraine and the United States, the decision-making authority is finally based with Washington under US legal surveillance. Many believe that this provision gives the United States a significant control over the natural richness of Ukraine, which essentially makes it a junior partner in the arrangement.
Although the agreement drops prior to the United States for a claim of $ 500 billion on Ukraine mineral resources, it still allows the United States to claim the joint property of the infrastructure linked to the resources of the Ukraine, including ports. This means that Ukraine will share not only income but will also abandon significant control over the main economic assets.
Trump’s hard approach and Zelensky concessions
The mineral agreement was at the center of a heated dispute between Trump and Zelensky. Ukraine had initially rejected the American proposal due to a controversial reimbursement structure, which would have forced kyiv to return two dollars for all revenues. In addition, Zelensky had put pressure for security guarantees as part of the agreement, but the final agreement does not include these provisions.
Trump publicly pressure on Zelensky to move forward with the agreement, accusing him of dragging his feet. In a clear reprimand, Trump called Zelensky as an election without dictator “and warned that if he did not act quickly, he” would not have a country. ” The American president designed the agreement as a means of ensuring that America recovers “the tens of billions of dollars” which he spent to support the war effort of Ukraine.
“What we are doing is now that we say, look, we want to be secure,” said Trump. “The American taxpayer will now recover his money, more.”
Desperate Zelensky to end war
In the midst of these negotiations, Zelensky reported an unprecedented desire to end the war, even suggesting that he would resign as president if it would bring peace to Ukraine.
“If [it guarantees] Peace for Ukraine, if you really need me to resign, I’m ready. I can exchange it for NATO, “he said. His public rhetoric has also changed in recent weeks, increasingly putting on the search for a diplomatic resolution in the conflict.
This change arises while Ukraine faces an aggravation of the military and economic situation. The war, now in its third year, left the country in ruins. According to the latest estimates by the World Bank, direct losses of Ukraine increased to $ 176 billion, compared to $ 152 billion a year ago. The report highlights the significant damage inflicted on the housing, energy and transport sectors of Ukraine. He notes that 13% of Ukraine’s total housing stock has been damaged or destroyed, affecting more than 2.5 million houses.
The war has also caused a 70% increase in damaged or destroyed assets, including power plants, transmission lines and district heating systems. Key infrastructure, including roads, bridges and ports, have undergone significant losses, making logistics and commercial operations more and more difficult.
With these astounding personalities and the American reluctance to continue to finance war, the ability of Ukraine to support the war effort decreases, pushing Zelensky to explore all possible avenues for peace.
Will Russia respect a peace agreement?
Although Zelensky has shown sufficient desire to make concessions, it is not clear if Russia would accept a peace regulation which respects the sovereignty of Ukraine.
On February 25, the ambassador of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Rodion Miroshnik, confirmed that the War objectives of Moscow remain “dissatisfied”. Using the term Kremlin for war, he said that “objectives of the special military operation had not yet been achieved”. Russia continues to demand that Ukraine withdraw from the four regions which it has annexed illegally – Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk and Luhansk – before serious negotiations.
Even if Zelensky had to accept a form of territorial concession, there is little confidence that the Russian president Vladimir Putin would respect any agreement. Western intelligence reports suggest that Putin uses peace talks as a means of consolidating territorial gains, rather than negotiating in good faith.
Meanwhile, the United States has embarked on direct talks with Russia, excluding Ukraine from discussions. A meeting of February 18 in Saudi Arabia between US and Russian officials sparked outsourcing in Europe, fearing that Ukraine be sidelined in negotiations on its own future.
Trump also referred to a possible meeting with Putin before the end of February, fueling speculation that Washington could seek a separate agreement with Moscow. Trump said the war “could end in a few weeks” and suggested deploying European peacekeepers in Ukraine – a proposal that has received mixed reactions from European leaders. The United Kingdom is preparing a plan to deploy 30,000 European soldiers as part of a post-war security agreement.
