US fast-track deal with Ukraine: behind Kyiv's fight to secure sovereignty and Trump's PR win
Ukraine and the US have agreed on the Minerals Agreement. The document which had been such a source of tension in Trump and Zelenskyy’s relations is temporarily off the agenda.
Temporarily, because the current agreement is only an interim one.
Ukraine and the US have agreed to establish a joint fund that will operate in the Ukrainian minerals sector and have settled on its key, politically significant parameters. Tough negotiations on the details still lie ahead.
But we can already draw some conclusions.
The agreement is indeed a good one.
It avoids the catastrophic consequences for Ukraine that were present in the initial versions Washington was pushing. At the same time, the US won’t be losing out either. Donald Trump personally is gaining an opportunity to promote himself as a dealmaker capable of achieving rapid agreements.
This article explains the content of the agreement and the dramatic negotiations between Ukraine and the US.
Rare-Earth story
Two weeks ago, on 12 February, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent arrived in Ukraine to personally present President Volodymyr Zelenskyy with a draft agreement on a "partnership" in Ukraine’s mineral extraction, as a condition for continued American aid.
Although the idea of exchanging minerals for security assistance was not a surprise – Kyiv itself had suggested discussing this possibility with the Trump administration – the text proposed shocked Zelenskyy’s team.
It’s no secret that Donald Trump is not particularly concerned with values or the idea of "defending democracy" that was central to the Biden administration’s dialogue. Trump is known for his transactional approach to politics. So Kyiv had sought something that would capture the US president’s interest.
A pro-Ukrainian Republican senator who frequently travels to Kyiv suggested the idea of rare-earth minerals. Zelenskyy’s team liked the idea. Most of Ukraine’s rare-earth metals deposits are located in Russian-occupied territories, so the scheme sounded logical: the US would help us liberate these lands, and in return, Ukraine would allow the US to profit from the resources extracted.
The initial feedback from the Trump administration was positive, which encouraged Kyiv. The US promised to come back with a draft agreement.
This original Ukrainian proposal explains why Trump initially referred to a "rare-earth minerals" deal in his statements. However, in reality, none of the draft agreements contained those exact words.
Although Trump continued to talk about a "rare-earths deal", the US quickly raised the stakes and attempted to take control of all the mineral resources and infrastructure in Ukraine, without any mention of de-occupation, which Zelenskyy had counted on.
This was the proposal that Secretary Bessent brought to Kyiv.
Zelenskyy’s refusal to sign the agreement led to a diplomatic standoff in Munich (as we detailed in this article).
With blackmail, but without debt
Now that the agreement has finally been reached, some details of the negotiations after Munich can be revealed.
The negotiations were extremely fast (less than two weeks, a very short time for a strategic agreement) – the way Donald Trump prefers it. However, their defining feature was not the speed but rather the negotiation style of the US administration.
After Zelenskyy refused to sign the initial document, it was rewritten multiple times from scratch. The Americans repeatedly changed their delegation, with each new team presenting conditions unacceptable to Kyiv. Among other demands, they insisted that Ukraine cede part of its sovereignty over mineral resource management to the US.
Washington applied pressure and even resorted to blackmail.
No agreement? Then no meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy: Trump would meet with Putin instead. Or: "Five more minutes, and I’ll call Trump to tell him you don’t want to negotiate with the US at all." President Trump himself took an active part in this game, setting conditions and making accusations, sometimes absurd ones (such as claiming that Zelenskyy was "sleeping" when Secretary Bessent arrived and had failed to meet with him).
The US demands turned out to be a no-go for Ukraine.
The biggest issue was the US’s attempt to tie the agreement to the repayment of Ukraine’s "debt" for the US aid received during the three years of full-scale war.
This idea was personally pushed by Trump, who repeatedly cited figures like $500 billion or $350 billion that the US had allegedly provided to Ukraine. None of the draft agreements contained such sums, although the early American proposals did indeed suggest that Ukraine should repay past US aid through mineral concessions.
Trump wanted to use this as his political trump card: "Biden gave money away, and I’m getting it back."
Zelenskyy firmly rejected this approach.
Ukraine received far less from the US than Trump claimed, but the amount wasn’t the issue. "I won’t recognise even 10 cents of debt, because that would set a precedent and open a Pandora’s box," Zelenskyy explained on 26 February.
The US provided assistance during the war as non-repayable aid. If Ukraine had agreed to convert it into debt, other donors might follow suit with similar demands. And Ukraine has received far more aid from the EU than from the US.
Only when the US side agreed to remove any mention of debt from the agreement did the negotiations move forward on other issues.
Preserving sovereignty and moving toward the EU
Over the two weeks of negotiations, the philosophy and core idea of the agreement changed significantly.
The initial US proposals aimed to limit Ukraine’s control over its own resources, transferring parts of its sovereign authority to the US. But the finalised agreement is designed to strengthen Ukraine, both in resisting Russian aggression and in post-war recovery.
For example, the first draft presented by Bessent on 12 February granted US companies exclusive rights to develop new mineral deposits in Ukraine. European and Ukrainian companies would only have been able to access sites that American investors weren’t interested in.
Another draft, proposed late last week, contained a provision stating: "The Government of Ukraine shall not sell or transfer any Government-owned natural resources without the consent of the Fund’s managers."
The final agreement doesn’t contain such restrictions.
We don’t know exactly which arguments persuaded the US to drop these provisions, but Ukraine’s EU accession likely played a key role. EU membership imposes obligations such as ensuring equal rights for European investors, not just American ones.
Several additional provisions regarding European integration have also been included in the final document at Ukraine’s insistence.
For example, the agreement explicitly states the need to "avoid conflicts with Ukraine’s obligations under its accession to the European Union". The same applies to Ukraine’s commitments to the IMF.
The agreement establishes a joint US-Ukraine fund, which will be financed through royalties from resource extraction, including oil and gas. Ukraine will contribute 50% of these revenues.
Initially, the US demanded that all state-owned infrastructure be included in the agreement. Ultimately, the wording was softened to cover only "infrastructure relevant to natural resource assets (such as liquefied natural gas terminals and port infrastructure)".
Most importantly, this only applies to new projects.
From the start, the Ukrainian government explained to the US that diverting all resource revenues into this fund would cripple Ukraine’s budget, harming defence capabilities and military funding.
The US ultimately agreed to a critical change: the agreement will not affect "current sources of revenues which are already part of the general budget revenues of Ukraine".
Last but not least, the funds collected in the joint fund will not go into the US budget, as originally proposed. Instead, the primary purpose will be reinvesting in Ukrainian mineral resource development and defence.
The US will contribute to the fund as well, most likely by providing weapons rather than direct financial aid. Additionally, the fund’s money could be used to purchase American weapons, which is something Ukraine urgently needs.
This raises an important question.
Why does the US need this?
The revised agreement has indeed significantly diverged from the initial proposals made by the Trump administration and is now much more aligned with Ukraine’s vision. So why did the US agree to it?
There are several key reasons.
First, Trump benefits personally from signing the agreement.
The US president is currently in a difficult position. He is struggling to fulfil most of his campaign pledges. The American media has been highlighting the fact that under Trump, the US is deporting even fewer illegal migrants than under Biden. The reduction of government employees has caused new problems. The trade war has not even begun, let alone led to any successes.
Not to mention Trump's promise to end Russia’s war within 24 hours.
Right now, it is crucial for Trump to "sell" successful initiatives. The agreement with Ukraine will be a key element of this PR campaign.
Trump has claimed to be a master of quick deals. He has indeed secured an extraordinarily quick minerals agreement, and the average MAGA voter is unlikely to care about the details.
There is no doubt that Trump will continue to make statements unrelated to the actual content of the deal. He is certainly not about to abandon his "Ukrainian debt" rhetoric, and on Wednesday he once again repeated his claim that the agreement would help the US recover $350 billion. Ukraine will tolerate these statements. The most important thing is that legally, this idea has been completely dismissed.
Second, US business interests.
There is still a lack of clarity around this. The details will be set out in the future comprehensive agreement on the reconstruction investment fund which Ukraine and the US are set to negotiate.
Will there be preferences for American investors? Will the fund's money be used to build infrastructure supporting US investments in Ukraine? The new agreement will need to determine these points.
For Ukraine, the priority is ensuring that these preferences do not undermine its future EU membership. To achieve this, the upcoming agreement will have to pass a legal review for compliance with EU regulations.
What’s next?
The agreed-upon resource deal (officially named the Bilateral Agreement Establishing Terms and Conditions for a Reconstruction Investment Fund) is a legally binding document. However, the only specific obligation for both Ukraine and the US is to initiate intergovernmental negotiations on a further agreement on the Reconstruction Investment Fund.
Additionally, both sides have agreed that these negotiations must align with the conditions outlined above.
The future fund agreement will require ratification by Ukraine’s parliament. This serves as an additional safeguard to prevent the inclusion of unacceptable provisions.
Moreover, Zelenskyy has made it clear that negotiations on the fund will be tied to future peace talks involving the US.
Currently, the document includes only a brief mention of its connection to the broader security framework. However, this reference was included in the final days of the negotiations at Ukraine's insistence.
In this way, Kyiv has created an incentive for Trump and his team: stronger pressure on Putin will lead to better conditions for US access to Ukraine’s resources.
The real question is whether this incentive will be sufficient in the grand geopolitical game where the stakes for all sides are extraordinarily high.
Sergiy Sydorenko
Editor, European Pravda