Even after months of so-called ‘hard’ negotiations, the US-Ukraine minerals deal carries little more than symbolic value. With no explicit security guarantees from Washington, Ukraine still stands worse off than it was before the conflict began in 2022.
The Deal
The deal also draws its symbolic value from the fact that it carries no explicit US military and security guarantees – something that Kyiv had been trying to get in exchange for giving Washington access to its mineral resources. The US Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, was prudent enough to emphasize the non-military nature of the deal in his remarks when he said that the deal showed that President Donald Trump and his administration is “committed to a peace process centered on a free, sovereign, and prosperous Ukraine over the long term.” The president pursued “this partnership between the American people and the Ukrainian people to show both sides’ commitment to lasting peace and prosperity in Ukraine,” he added.
While there is no US security guarantee to the effect that Washington will necessarily come to Ukraine’s defence in the event of any military crisis, the deal has still opened the possibility of continuous US military supplies to Ukraine. Immediately after the deal was signed, President Trump the sale of weapons worth US$ 50 million to Kyiv. Because this is a sale, rather than aid, Washington is making sure to get high returns from the ongoing military conflict. Still, the question remains: can President Trump use this symbolic deal to force Russian to accept a deal on the resolution of the conflict itself? It is not difficult to imagine why Moscow will be unimpressed with the contents of the deal. Simply put, it poses no threat, let alone a military threat, to Russia, which means it is hardly enough to force any deal on Moscow.
A Departure from the Original Offer
Let’s not forget why Ukraine had initially proposed a deal. The original proposal to offer joint development of Ukraine’s critical minerals and rare earth elements came from the Ukrainians. The purpose of this offer was to draw maximum US support and permanently align economic and national security interests between the US and Ukraine. This offer became very critical for the survival of Ukraine because President Trump, after he took office in January, made it clear that he viewed military support and aid as a zero-sum drain on the US resources. Ukraine’s intention was to counter that narrative by putting a deal on the table that compensates US taxpayers for their support—and makes defending Ukraine worth Trump’s while— by providing access to and allowing the development of its resources. While Trump can politically sell this deal, i.e., access to mineral profits in exchange for military support, Kyiv is far from having similar access to US military support immediately and/or on a permanent basis. In fact, if US wants to utilize access to these resources and make a profit out of them, it now needs more than ever to bring the military conflict to an end. It means that the Trump administration might be willing to accept Russian terms and show sensitivity to Russian interests a lot more generously than it has done so far, for the continuation of the conflict makes exploiting mineral resources unlikely.
Where does it leave Ukraine?
Is today’s Ukraine better off or worse off than the Ukraine of pre-February 2022? Before the present conflict began, Ukraine hoped for becoming a NAT member, or at least this is what the Biden administration told Kyiv. That is not going to happen in the foreseeable future. Kyiv also hoped to become a member of the EU. While the present agreement with the US does not prevent it from becoming an EU state, how and when that might be possible remains to be seen. Thirdly, before Kyiv became an instrument of NATO’s expansion, it held sovereign control of its minerals. Today, not only does it share those deposits with the US, but it also depends on Washington’s technological support for these mineral’s extraction. The US, through this deal, has made clear that US share in profits is compensation for any future US military aid and assistance. With Kyiv’s dependence on the US now deeper than ever, would be it wrong to describe today’s Ukraine as an American geopolitical outpost in Eastern Europe?
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs
