Ukraine’s preliminary agreement with the United States over its mineral wealth marks a significant geopolitical development, intertwining economic survival with strategic dependence. While the deal is being framed as a win-win arrangement, it raises critical questions about Ukraine’s long-term sovereignty, its security aspirations, and the true beneficiaries of this resource exchange.

At the heart of the agreement lies Ukraine’s vast reserves of rare earth minerals, including graphite, lithium, titanium, and other critical raw materials essential for modern industries, from electric vehicles to advanced weaponry. The US, eager to reduce its dependence on China for these resources, views Ukraine as a valuable alternative. In return, Ukraine hopes to leverage its mineral wealth to secure much-needed investment for its wartorn economy. The proposed investment fund, jointly managed by Kyiv and Washington, is intended to finance Ukraine’s reconstruction, with half of future state-owned mineral revenues flowing into it.

Advertisement

However, the absence of firm US security guarantees casts a long shadow over the deal. Ukraine’s leadership, particularly President Volodymyr Zelenskky, has been pressing for concrete assurances ~ either in the form of a Nato pathway or bilateral defence commitments. Without such security backing, Ukraine risks entering into an economic arrangement that primarily serves external interests without addressing its existential threat from Russia. The US, on the other hand, has framed the deal as a way to “get back” the money it has provided to Ukraine in military and financial aid. This transactional approach underscores a shift in Washington’s stance, indicating that future support may come with strings attached rather than as an unconditional commitment to Ukraine’s survival. The strategic timing of this deal cannot be overlooked.

As the war drags on, Ukraine finds itself increasingly reliant on Western support, while the US faces domestic political debates over continued aid. By tying economic investment to mineral access, Washington ensures long-term stakes in Ukraine’s future while securing critical resources. Yet, this arrangement also makes Kyiv increasingly dependent on US policy shifts, particularly under an administration that has shown an inclination to renegotiate international commitments based on perceived American interests. Russia has predictably dismissed the agreement, touting its own mineral wealth and offering incentives for foreign investment in the territories it now occupies. This signals Mos – cow’s intent to use economic leverage to counterbalance Western influence in Ukraine.

The unresolved issue of unexploded mines across large swathes of Ukraine further complicates the immediate feasibility of large-scale mineral extraction, adding logistical and security challenges to an already precarious situation. Ultimately, the US-Ukraine minerals deal represents both an opportunity and a risk. While it provides Ukraine with a potential economic lifeline, its long-term benefits hinge on whether it secures ironclad security assurances. Without them, Ukraine may find itself trading its mineral wealth not for stability, but for deeper strategic vulnerability. If so, the country will have been well and truly duped by the West.