Without US security guarantees, Ukraine minerals deal seeks middle ground — read full terms here

After weeks of tense negotiations, the United States and Ukraine have sought middle ground in the minerals deal that they have reached.

While the Donald Trump administration has given up some of the most contentious demands that made Ukraine initially reject the proposed deal, there are still no security guarantees that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy maintains are key to end the war with Russia on respectable terms.

The Trump and Zelenskyy administrations sesparately confirmed on Wednesday that the minerals deal had been reached. Trump said that Zelenskyy will arrive in Washington DC on Friday to sign the deal.

Even as two sides have reached middle ground, there is no assurance that Trump is going to soften his new alliance with Russia. While he had always been critical of the support to Ukraine, he has turned completely hostile in recent weeks. He has falsely accused Ukraine of starting the war, incorrectly blamed Nato for provoking Russia into entering the war, falsely called Zelenskyy a “dictator”, and the United States refused to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine at the United Nations.

More from World

Air Canada postpones service resumption after flight attendants union refuses work order Myanmar: Civil war still raging, but junta announces national election from Dec 28

ALSO READ: US security guarantees a must, Putin eyes not just Ukraine but all Europe, says Zelenskyy

While the two sides have not published the agreement, it has appeared in media reports. Here we break down the terms of the US-Ukraine minerals deal.

US drops contentious terms

The two sides have had a trade-off where the United States has dropped some of the most contentious terms and Ukraine has had to do with vague promises.

In the initial proposal that essentially sought to turn Ukraine into a US colony, the United States had sought 100 per cent control of the joint fund under the deal, 50 per cent revenue from all minerals activities in Ukraine, 50 per cent revneues from all licences issued after the deal’s signing, the right of first refusal for all future licences, and a veto on all decision-making of the fund.

ALSO READ: Trump’s plan reduces Ukraine to US ‘colony’, seeks total control of resources & veto over all decisions: Report

In the revised deal, the fund will be jointly owned but the shareholding is not defined. Moreover, only revenue generated from minerals project started in the future would be covered under the deal, not existing projects.

Impact Shorts

View All

How should India respond to Trump tariffs? Cite Alaska outcome to US, join RCEP: Sachs tells Firstpost

Myanmar: Civil war still raging, but junta announces national election from Dec 28

The joint fund “will earn income from the future monetisation of all relevant Ukrainian Government-owned natural resource assets (whether owned directly or indirectly by the Ukrainian Government)”, says the agreement, as reported by Financial Times.

The deal states, “For the avoidance of doubt, such future sources of revenues do not include the current sources of revenues which are already part of the general budget revenues of Ukraine. Timeline, scope and sustainability of contributions will be further defined in the Fund Agreement.”

As per the terms, 50 per cent of all revenues from future minerals projects would go to this fund.

Moreover, the current version of the deal does away with the US veto and states that neither side can “sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of, directly or indirectly, any portion of its interest in the Fund without the prior written consent of the other”.

Ukraine makes peace with vague promises

There is nothing about security guarantees for Ukraine but vague assurances that may essentially amount to nothing.

Even if not substantial security guarantees, Ukraine has some symbolic assurancse. Even as Trump and his allies have said Ukraine started the war, the deal states that Russia mounted a “full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022” and states that that “American people desire to invest alongside Ukraine in a free, sovereign and secure Ukraine”, according to the agreement published by FT.

With no security guarantee, the agreement states, “The Government of the United States of America supports Ukraine’s efforts to obtain security guarantees needed to establish lasting peace.”

This may be the indication that the United States may support a European peacekeeping force inside Ukraine but not contribute to any peacekeeping efforts. As per a British-French plan, Europe may deploy a force of up to 30,000 peacekeepers in Ukrainem, but they insist the force to be supported by the United States.

Trump on Wednesday said that “I’m not going to provide security guarantees beyond very much”.

Trump further said, “We’re going to have Europe do that.”

There is also no clarity how much fund will be invested for Ukraine’s reconstruction. The agreement states that the fund will collect and reinvest revenues “at least annually in Ukraine to promote the safety, security and prosperity of Ukraine”, but does not go into specifics.

ALSO READ: After talks with Trump, Macron says 'peace must not mean surrendering Ukraine'

Despite the vagueness, the deal does bring some clarity. Even though it has been said to be a ‘rare earth’ deal, the agreement covers a wide range of natural resources. The agreement states covers “deposits of minerals, hydrocarbons, oil, natural gas, and other extractable materials, and other infrastructure relevant to natural resource assets (such as liquified natural gas terminals and port infrastructure) as agreed by both Participants”.

In a clause that may translate into a security guarantee of some sorts is one that appears to prevent Russia from profiting from natural sources under its occupation. The agreements states that the two side “wish to ensure that those States and other persons that have acted adversely to Ukraine in the conflict do not benefit from the reconstruction of Ukraine following a lasting peace”. The clause appears to refer to Russia particularly as the agreement identifies as the aggressor.