Ukraine and the U.S. Near Agreement on Natural Resource Revenue Sharing

Overview of the Potential Deal

Ukraine and the United States are on the verge of finalizing a historic agreement that would grant Washington a share of Kyiv’s revenues from natural resources. This development comes after months of intense pressure from President Donald Trump, who has been pushing for a deal. President Trump announced that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky may visit the White House as early as this week or next to sign the agreement. Trump stated, “The agreement’s being worked on now. They’re very close to a final deal.” Similarly, Ukraine’s Deputy Prime Minister Olha Stefanishyna confirmed on X that negotiations were in their final stages.

The agreement, as reviewed by The New York Times, includes more favorable terms for Ukraine compared to earlier drafts. However, it does not provide the security guarantees Ukraine has repeatedly requested to protect itself from Russian aggression. Four anonymous sources briefed on the deal revealed that the terms were still under discussion as of Monday evening, suggesting that the final agreement could evolve further.

Geopolitical Implications and Tensions

The negotiations over mineral wealth are deeply intertwined with broader geopolitical tensions, particularly surrounding U.S. military and financial aid to Ukraine and the ongoing conflict with Russia. President Zelensky has emphasized that any peace deal must include Western military support to prevent future Russian attacks. However, President Trump has prioritized ending the war quickly, without offering such guarantees. A White House official clarified that the economic agreement would not serve as a guarantee of future war aid or involve U.S. personnel in the region.

Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin has sought to counter U.S. influence by highlighting Russia’s vast reserves of rare earth minerals, which he claimed are far greater than Ukraine’s. Putin suggested that Russia could collaborate with American companies to develop these resources, even in Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine. This move appears to be an attempt to undermine Ukraine’s position in the negotiations and draw the U.S. into cooperation with Russia.

Key Terms of the Draft Agreement

The draft agreement obtained by The New York Times reveals several important details. Unlike earlier versions, it no longer demands that Ukraine pay $500 billion to the U.S. as compensation for past military and financial aid. This earlier provision had been met with resistance from Ukraine, which argued that it would impose an unsustainable financial burden on future generations. Additionally, the draft does not require Ukraine to repay twice the value of future American aid, a condition that was included in previous versions.

Instead, the agreement proposes that Ukraine will relinquish half of its revenues from the monetization of natural resources, such as oil, gas, and minerals. These revenues would be directed into a fund in which the United States would hold the maximum allowable financial interest under U.S. law. While the exact percentage of Ukraine’s contribution to the fund remains unclear, the draft suggests that the fund will reinvest revenues in Ukraine to attract further investment and support the country’s long-term economic development.

Opposition and Criticism

Despite the progress in negotiations, the absence of security guarantees has been a major point of contention. President Zelensky has consistently demanded that any agreement include assurances to deter future Russian aggression, a stance that led him to refuse earlier drafts. The lack of such guarantees in the current draft has sparked criticism, particularly given the ongoing war and Ukraine’s vulnerability.

Furthermore, President Trump’s rhetoric has added to the complexities of the situation. Last week, he referred to Zelensky as “a dictator” and falsely accused Ukraine of starting the war. His administration also opposed a U.N. resolution that labeled Russia as the aggressor, a stance that diverged from most U.S. allies. These actions have raised concerns about the U.S.’s commitment to Ukraine’s security and sovereignty.

Economic Partnership and Its Significance

White House officials have argued that the mere presence of U.S. economic interests in Ukraine could serve as a deterrent to Russian aggression, even without explicit security guarantees. Mike Waltz, the U.S. national security adviser, emphasized, “What better could you have for Ukraine than to be in an economic partnership with the United States?” This perspective suggests that the agreement is not just about revenue sharing but also about strengthening Ukraine’s ties to the West and bolstering its economic resilience.

However, critics argue that economic cooperation alone may not be sufficient to safeguard Ukraine against Russian ambitions. They point out that without concrete security commitments, Ukraine remains exposed to the threat of further invasion and instability.

Conclusion: A Fragile Balance

The U.S.-Ukraine agreement represents a delicate balancing act, navigating economic cooperation, geopolitical tensions, and the complexities of war. While the current draft offers more favorable terms to Ukraine than previous versions, the absence of security guarantees remains a significant concern. As negotiations continue, the outcome will depend on whether both sides can find a compromise that addresses Ukraine’s immediate needs and long-term vulnerabilities while advancing U.S. economic and strategic interests.

The visit of President Zelensky to the White House, if it materializes, could mark a turning point in the relationship between the two nations. However, the road ahead remains fraught with challenges, as Ukraine seeks to secure its future in the face of ongoing conflict and shifting international alliances.