Ukraine Rejects U.S. Mineral Deal: A Deepening Rift Amid War and Diplomacy

By Nathan Abbington

Cover Image Attribute: Retired U.S. Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg (R) with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The former traveled to Kyiv on 19 February, and whose planned news conference with Zelenskyy on Thursday (20 February) was changed at the last minute to a simple photo opportunity. Source: AP

Amid rising tensions between Ukraine and its most vital wartime ally, the United States, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has rejected a controversial proposal from the Trump administration that would have granted the U.S. access to half of Ukraine’s vast mineral wealth. The deal, valued at an estimated $500 billion by U.S. officials, was framed as "payback" for American military and financial support provided to Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion began in February 2022. However, Zelenskyy’s refusal to sign the agreement, citing insufficient security guarantees, has sparked a war of words between Kyiv and Washington, threatening to reshape the delicate geopolitical balance in Eastern Europe as the war enters its fourth year.

The Proposed Deal: Minerals for Aid

The proposal, first presented to Zelenskyy by U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent during a visit to Kyiv earlier this month, was an audacious bid to secure American economic interests in Ukraine’s untapped reserves of rare earth minerals and other critical resources. Ukraine is home to one of Europe’s largest deposits of lithium, titanium, uranium, and other minerals essential for advanced technologies, including electric vehicle batteries, aerospace manufacturing, and defense systems. The country’s mineral wealth, estimated by some analysts to be worth upwards of $11.5 trillion, has long been seen as a potential economic lifeline for a nation ravaged by war.
Under the terms of the initial draft, the U.S. would have received a 50% stake in the revenues generated from Ukraine’s mineral resources, including not only rare earths but also oil, gas, and infrastructure such as ports. The agreement, according to sources familiar with the document, would have been governed by a New York court and overridden any existing Ukrainian trade agreements, effectively giving Washington unprecedented control over a significant portion of Ukraine’s economy. U.S. National Security Adviser Mike Waltz described the deal as an “incredible and historic opportunity” for Ukraine, arguing that it would tie American investment to Kyiv’s long-term prosperity and serve as a de facto security shield against future Russian aggression.
President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly emphasized a transactional approach to foreign policy, underscored the deal’s importance during a recent Fox News interview. “We’ve given them so much—billions and billions—and they’ve got these incredible rare earths. I told them I want $500 billion worth, and they’ve essentially agreed,” Trump claimed, though subsequent developments have proven this assertion premature.

Zelenskyy’s Rejection: A Stand for Sovereignty

Zelenskyy’s rejection of the deal came to light during the Munich Security Conference last weekend, where he publicly criticized the proposal’s lack of concrete security commitments. “I didn’t let the ministers sign a relevant agreement because, in my view, it is not ready to protect us, our interests,” he told reporters. For Zelenskyy, the deal represented not just an economic transaction but a potential surrender of Ukraine’s sovereignty at a time when the nation is fighting for its survival against Russia’s ongoing aggression.
Ukrainian officials have privately expressed dismay at the terms, likening them to war reparations imposed on a defeated nation rather than a partnership between allies. “It was more like something you’d impose on a country you’ve conquered,” one source close to the negotiations told Axios. Zelenskyy has also disputed Trump’s assertion that U.S. aid to Ukraine totals $500 billion, noting that the actual figure is closer to $175 billion—a mix of military, financial, and humanitarian assistance since 2022. “You can’t call this $500 billion and ask us to return $500 billion in minerals or something else,” he said, highlighting the discrepancy.
The Ukrainian president’s refusal to sign was not a blanket rejection of cooperation with the U.S. on mineral resources. In September 2024, Zelenskyy had pitched a “victory plan” to Trump that included offering strategic partners joint investment in Ukraine’s critical resources as a means of rebuilding the war-torn economy. However, he insists that any such arrangement must be tied to robust security guarantees—such as NATO membership or bilateral defense pacts—that would protect Ukraine from future Russian incursions.

A Public Spat and Diplomatic Fallout

The cancellation of the mineral deal has triggered a sharp deterioration in U.S.-Ukraine relations, with both sides trading barbs in an increasingly public feud. Trump, incensed by Zelenskyy’s refusal, branded him a “dictator without elections” and accused him of choosing war over peace with Russia. Zelenskyy fired back, suggesting that Trump was trapped in a “disinformation space” influenced by Moscow. The exchange has laid bare the growing rift between Kyiv and the Trump administration, which has prioritized direct negotiations with Russia—often excluding Ukraine—as part of its broader strategy to end the conflict.
The fallout was further underscored when Keith Kellogg, Trump’s special envoy to Ukraine, abruptly canceled a planned press conference in Kyiv earlier this week following a reportedly tense meeting with Zelenskyy. White House officials, including Waltz, have expressed frustration with what they describe as “unacceptable” rhetoric from Kyiv, urging Zelenskyy to “tone it down” and reconsider the deal. “They need to take a hard look and sign that deal,” Waltz told Fox News, framing it as a pragmatic step toward securing Ukraine’s future.

Behind the Scenes: A Revised Offer

Despite the public acrimony, negotiations have quietly continued. Sources familiar with the talks told Axios that the Trump administration has offered an “improved” draft of the minerals agreement in recent days, though specifics remain scarce. Ukrainian officials have indicated that the revised proposal still falls short of Kyiv’s demands for legally binding security assurances. Zelenskyy has also pointed to constitutional hurdles, noting that any such deal would require parliamentary approval—a process that could prove politically treacherous amid widespread war fatigue and economic hardship.
Some of Zelenskyy’s aides are reportedly pressing him to accept the updated offer to avoid further alienating Washington, especially as Trump ramps up diplomatic engagement with Moscow. However, others warn that ceding control of Ukraine’s mineral wealth without ironclad guarantees risks undermining the country’s post-war recovery and long-term independence.

Broader Implications: A Shifting Alliance

The mineral deal controversy comes at a pivotal moment in the Russia-Ukraine war. With Russian forces entrenched in eastern Ukraine—where many of the country’s mineral deposits are located—the prospect of exploiting these resources remains uncertain. The ongoing conflict has already rendered much of Ukraine’s industrial capacity inaccessible, and analysts question whether the country could realistically scale up production amid such instability.
For the U.S., the deal reflects a broader strategic aim to reduce dependence on China, which dominates the global supply of rare earth minerals. Securing access to Ukraine’s reserves could bolster American technological and military competitiveness, a priority for the Trump administration. Yet the heavy-handed approach has drawn criticism from European allies, who fear being sidelined as Washington pursues bilateral arrangements with both Kyiv and Moscow.
In Ukraine, the episode has deepened disillusionment with the U.S., once seen as an unwavering partner. Public sentiment, as reflected in posts on X, reveals a mix of defiance and skepticism, with some users applauding Zelenskyy’s stance while others lament the potential loss of American support. “Should have taken the deal,” one X user wrote, encapsulating the dilemma facing Kyiv.

Looking Ahead: A Deal in Limbo

As of February 21, 2025, the fate of the U.S.-Ukraine mineral deal remains uncertain. Waltz hinted at a conservative conference in Washington today that he expects Zelenskyy to sign an agreement “in the very short term,” but Kyiv has yet to confirm any breakthrough. With Trump set to host French President Emmanuel Macron in Washington on Monday, the issue is likely to feature prominently in discussions about the war’s trajectory and Europe’s role in supporting Ukraine.
For now, Zelenskyy’s rejection of the original proposal stands as a bold assertion of Ukraine’s agency amid existential threats. Yet it also underscores the fragility of the U.S.-Ukraine partnership at a time when Kyiv can ill afford to lose its most powerful ally. As the war grinds on, the question remains: Can the two sides salvage a deal that balances Ukraine’s sovereignty with America’s economic ambitions—or will this standoff mark the beginning of a deeper divide? 

IndraStra Global is now available on
Apple News, Google News, Feedly, Flipboard, and  WhatsApp Channel

COPYRIGHT: This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

REPUBLISH: Republish our articles online or in print for free if you follow these guidelines. https://www.indrastra.com/p/republish-us.html