After weeks of tense negotiations, the United States and Ukraine had reached middle ground on their contentious minerals deal, but the agreement fell short of offering Ukraine the security guarantees it desperately needs. The Trump administration's recent shift reflects growing concerns over its approach to foreign relations and support for Ukraine amid its struggle against Russian aggression.
During discussions, it became apparent to both sides—U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy—that concessions were necessary. Although the United States abandoned some of its harshest demands which led to Ukraine's initial rejection of the deal, the revised agreement still lacks the security guarantees, which Zelenskyy emphasizes are pivotal for ending the war with Russia on acceptable terms.
Confirmed by Trump, Zelenskyy is due to arrive in Washington D.C. soon to sign the deal, but experts are skeptical whether it will translate to effective support. Tensions have escalated recently as Trump has adopted a more hostile stance against Ukraine, making false accusations about its role in the war and refraining from condemning the Russian invasion at the United Nations.
The minerals deal's terms highlight several key changes from the original proposal, which many deemed excessive. Initially, the U.S. sought complete control over the joint fund, 50% of revenues from all mineral activities, and veto powers over decisions. The revised agreement allows joint ownership of the fund but leaves many details undefined. Revenue share specifics now only apply to new projects, excluding existing ones from financial commitments under this deal.
While the new arrangement establishes the fund will earn from future monetization of relevant government-owned resources, it explicitly states, “for the avoidance of doubt, such future sources of revenues do not include the current sources already part of the general budget revenues of Ukraine.” This suggests limitations on economic support for the struggling nation.
Instead of safeguarding Ukraine, Trump’s administration now suggests Europe will play the major role in the country's security strategy. “I’m not going to provide security guarantees beyond very much,” Trump stated, emphasizing, “We’re going to have Europe do this.”
This pivot has sparked alarm among European leaders, who are uneasy about the U.S. government's stability and commitment. Even as French President Emmanuel Macron visited Washington to secure U.S. support for potential peacekeeping forces, Trump resisted any obligation to contribute military resources, leaving European nations like the UK and France to bear the weight of operational commitments.
The dynamics of this minerals deal have raised significant concerns about the long-term strategy of U.S. involvement. European leaders are pushing for approximately 30,000 peacekeepers, with the expectation of substantive U.S. backing, which remains uncertain. The fears of provoking Russia by deploying such forces linger heavily over discussions.
Critics point to the vagueness of the new agreements, emphasizing the lack of clear timelines, scopes, or financial commitments for reconstruction efforts. Trump and his allies have framed the situation with maligning comments about Ukraine, indirectly portraying it as some aggressor, all the more reason for skepticism about U.S. intentions.
A particularly alarming aspect of the revised deal suggests efforts to restrict Russia from profiting from natural resources during its occupation. This clause appears to refer to ensuring “those states and other persons” who acted against Ukraine do not benefit from its reconstruction efforts. It is significant, yet vague enough to warrant skepticism about its implementation.
With terms continuing to evolve, it's evident the current U.S. administration’s approach reflects broader geopolitical shifts and the increasingly delicate balance of power. The reluctance to provide security guarantees highlights the apprehension among allies who are closely monitoring this development.
Overall, the minerals deal signs of compromise, yet the corrosive debates surrounding the support for Ukraine—marked by false accusations and unclear commitments—underscore the deepening challenges facing not only Ukraine but the U.S. role on the global stage. How this will affect future Ukrainian and European security remains to be seen.