How Ukraine agreed on the mineral agreement with the US and are there any flaws in it?
Ukraine and the US have agreed on the Minerals Agreement. 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.
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. International security also benefits from this, as it is currently heavily dependent on developments in Ukraine.
Read more about how the negotiations unfolded and what the agreement's provisions mean in the article by Sergiy Sydorenko, European Pravda's editor - US fast-track deal with Ukraine: behind Kyiv's fight to secure sovereignty and Trump's PR win.
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.
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.
Trump wanted to use this as his political trump card: "Biden gave money away, and I’m getting it back."
Only when the US side agreed to remove any mention of debt from the agreement did the negotiations move forward on other issues.
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.
Why does the US need this?
There are several key reasons.
First, Trump benefits personally from signing the agreement.
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.
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.