Donald Trump has been vocal about his belief that the Russia-Ukraine war would never have escalated had he remained in office. He has also claimed that, if given the chance, he could swiftly end the ongoing conflict. However, despite these bold assertions, Trump has yet to reveal a concrete plan to bring about an immediate resolution.

In addition to his promises to end the war, Trump has also called for Ukraine to repay the United States for the substantial military and financial aid provided since the war began. The figure Trump references amounts to around $300 billion, and his approach to Ukraine’s future may involve not just diplomacy, but also economic strategies.

One of the most talked-about aspects of Trump’s position revolves around Ukraine’s natural resources. The U.S. has long had an interest in the extraction of these resources, and recent developments suggest that the Trump administration sees economic partnerships with Ukraine as central to its future relationship with the country.

Senator Lindsey Graham, a staunch ally of Trump, made headlines last autumn when he visited Kyiv ahead of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s unveiling of his ‘Victory Plan’. During his visit, Graham hinted at the idea of Ukraine selling off its mineral reserves to the United States, positioning the country as a potential economic partner. By tapping into Ukraine’s vast mineral resources, the U.S. could reduce its dependence on nations like China for rare earth minerals, which are essential for modern technologies like smartphones and electric vehicles.

This notion of exploiting Ukraine’s resources has been reinforced in recent discussions between U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Ukrainian officials. According to a draft of a proposal leaked to The Telegraph, Bessent’s deal would see the U.S. claim 50% of the revenues generated from Ukraine’s resource extraction. Additionally, it would grant the U.S. a 50% share of all new licenses issued to third parties for future resource monetization.

This proposal is framed as part of a broader effort to provide Ukraine with long-term security in the event of a ceasefire with Russia. Bessent has argued that this ‘economic commitment’ would assure Ukraine of continued support from the U.S.

However, the terms of the deal have raised serious concerns in Kyiv. While Zelensky and his aides were initially open to the idea of forging a long-term economic partnership with the U.S., they quickly realized that the proposal lacked sufficient security guarantees. Sources within the Ukrainian government have described the deal as an exploitative contract, more akin to the terms imposed on vanquished nations, rather than a mutually beneficial agreement between allies.

The Ukrainian leadership has been clear: any agreement with the U.S. must include concrete security guarantees alongside economic cooperation. President Zelensky has emphasized that Ukraine cannot be reduced to merely a supplier of raw materials, pointing out the vast reserves of critical minerals such as lithium, titanium, and other rare earths found within the country. These minerals, he argues, are crucial not only for Ukraine’s economic recovery but also for America’s technological advancement and security.

While the U.S. proposal was being examined, reports emerged of Trump suggesting that Ukraine could repay its debts to the U.S. with minerals worth “like $500 billion”. Such remarks underscore the central role that Ukraine’s natural resources could play in the broader geopolitical dynamics of the region.

Despite these claims, experts note that Ukraine currently faces significant challenges in accessing and extracting its mineral wealth. The ongoing war has heavily impacted the industry, with many mining operations either slowed or entirely halted. Additionally, large portions of Ukraine’s richest mineral deposits are located in areas currently occupied by Russian forces, adding complexity to any potential deal.

The economic terms outlined in Bessent’s proposal have been likened to those seen in exploitative contracts, with analysts warning that accepting them could place Ukraine in a vulnerable position. The agreement would grant the U.S. a ‘right of first refusal’ on any future exportable minerals, and some sources have described clauses that effectively place U.S. interests above Ukraine’s sovereignty and future prosperity.

For now, President Zelensky has rejected the terms of the deal. In a statement to the press, he said the proposal was not in Ukraine’s interests, stressing the need for security guarantees before any economic agreement could be signed. The Ukrainian president’s message is clear: Ukraine’s resources should not be exploited without assurances of its future safety and stability.

As the war continues and Ukraine’s recovery becomes more urgent, these discussions around natural resources and security will likely play a critical role in shaping the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. While economic deals could help rebuild the Ukrainian economy, the terms and the broader context of these agreements will be crucial in determining whether Ukraine can preserve its sovereignty and secure its place in the global order.

You also might be interested