Why Zelensky – not Trump – may have ‘won’ the US-Ukraine minerals deal
Published: May 5, 2025 10:33pm EDT
Authors
- Eve WarburtonResearch Fellow, Department of Political and Social Change, and Director, Indonesia Institute, Australian National University
- Olga BoichakSenior Lecturer in Digital Cultures, Australian Research Council DECRA fellow, University of Sydney
Disclosure statement
Eve Warburton receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Westpac Scholars Trust.
Olga Boichak is a director of the Foundation of Ukrainian Studies in Australia. She receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Westpac Scholars Trust.
Partners
University of Sydney and Australian National University provide funding as members of The Conversation AU.
We believe in the free flow of information
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.Republish this article
Last week, the Trump administration signed a deal with Ukraine that gives it privileged access to Ukraine’s natural resources.
Some news outlets described the deal as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “caving” to US President Donald Trump’s demands.
But we see the agreement as the result of clever bargaining on the part of Ukraine’s war-time president.
So, what does the deal mean for Ukraine? And will this help strengthen America’s mineral supply chains?
Ukraine’s natural resource wealth
Ukraine is home to 5% of the world’s critical mineral wealth, including 22 of the 34 minerals identified by the European Union as vital for defence, construction and high-tech manufacturing.
However, there’s a big difference between resources (what’s in the ground) and reserves (what can be commercially exploited). Ukraine’s proven mineral reserves are limited.
Further, Ukraine has an estimated mineral wealth of around US$14.8 trillion (A$23 trillion), but more than half of this is in territories currently occupied by Russia.
What does the new deal mean for Ukraine?
American support for overseas conflict is usually about securing US economic interests — often in the form of resource exploitation. From the Middle East to Asia, US interventions abroad have enabled access for American firms to other countries’ oil, gas and minerals.
But the first iteration of the Ukraine mineral deal, which Zelensky rejected in February, had been an especially brazen resource grab by Trump’s government. It required Ukraine to cede sovereignty over its land and resources to one country (the US), in order to defend itself from attacks by another (Russia).
These terms were highly exploitative of a country fighting against a years-long military occupation. In addition, they violated Ukraine’s constitution, which puts the ownership of Ukraine’s natural resources in the hands of the Ukrainian people. Were Zelensky to accept this, he would have faced a tremendous backlash from the public.
In comparison, the new deal sounds like a strategic and (potentially) commercial win for Ukraine.
First, this agreement is more just, and it’s aligned with Ukraine’s short- and medium-term interests. Zelenksy describes it as an “equal partnership” that will modernise Ukraine.
Under the terms, Ukraine will set up a United States–Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund for foreign investments into the country’s economy, which will be jointly governed by both countries.
https://embed.bsky.app/embed/did:plc:miwyf5eoyo33nj2y4gzilfc5/app.bsky.feed.post/3lo2ymjturk2v?id=8545030027729192&ref_url=https%253A%252F%252Ftheconversation.com%252Fwhy-zelensky-not-trump-may-have-won-the-us-ukraine-minerals-deal-255875
Ukraine will contribute 50% of the income from royalties and licenses to develop critical minerals, oil and gas reserves, while the US can make its contributions in-kind, such as through military assistance or technology transfers.
Ukraine maintains ownership over its natural resources and state enterprises. And the licensing agreements will not require substantial changes to the country’s laws, or disrupt its future integration with Europe.
Importantly, there is no mention of retroactive debts for the US military assistance already received by Ukraine. This would have created a dangerous precedent, allowing other nations to seek to claim similar debts from Ukraine.
Finally, the deal also signals the Trump administration’s commitment to “a free, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine” – albeit, still without any security guarantees.
Profits may be a long time coming
Unsurprisingly, the Trump administration and conservative media in the US are framing the deal as a win.
For too long, Trump argues, Ukraine has enjoyed US taxpayer-funded military assistance, and such assistance now has a price tag. The administration has described the deal to Americans as a profit-making endeavour that can recoup monies spent defending Ukrainian interests.
But in reality, profits are a long way off.
The terms of the agreement clearly state the fund’s investment will be directed at new resource projects. Existing operations and state-owned projects will fall outside the terms of the agreement.
Mining projects typically work within long time frames. The move from exploration to production is a slow, high-risk and enormously expensive process. It can often take over a decade.
Add to this complexity the fact that some experts are sceptical Ukraine even has enormously valuable reserves. And to bring any promising deposits to market will require major investments.
Why Zelensky – not Trump – may have ‘won’ the US-Ukraine minerals deal
Published: May 5, 2025 10:33pm EDT
Authors
- Eve WarburtonResearch Fellow, Department of Political and Social Change, and Director, Indonesia Institute, Australian National University
- Olga BoichakSenior Lecturer in Digital Cultures, Australian Research Council DECRA fellow, University of Sydney
Disclosure statement
Eve Warburton receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Westpac Scholars Trust.
Olga Boichak is a director of the Foundation of Ukrainian Studies in Australia. She receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Westpac Scholars Trust.
Partners
University of Sydney and Australian National University provide funding as members of The Conversation AU.
We believe in the free flow of information
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.Republish this article
Last week, the Trump administration signed a deal with Ukraine that gives it privileged access to Ukraine’s natural resources.
Some news outlets described the deal as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “caving” to US President Donald Trump’s demands.
But we see the agreement as the result of clever bargaining on the part of Ukraine’s war-time president.
So, what does the deal mean for Ukraine? And will this help strengthen America’s mineral supply chains?
Ukraine’s natural resource wealth
Ukraine is home to 5% of the world’s critical mineral wealth, including 22 of the 34 minerals identified by the European Union as vital for defence, construction and high-tech manufacturing.
However, there’s a big difference between resources (what’s in the ground) and reserves (what can be commercially exploited). Ukraine’s proven mineral reserves are limited.
Further, Ukraine has an estimated mineral wealth of around US$14.8 trillion (A$23 trillion), but more than half of this is in territories currently occupied by Russia.
What does the new deal mean for Ukraine?
American support for overseas conflict is usually about securing US economic interests — often in the form of resource exploitation. From the Middle East to Asia, US interventions abroad have enabled access for American firms to other countries’ oil, gas and minerals.
But the first iteration of the Ukraine mineral deal, which Zelensky rejected in February, had been an especially brazen resource grab by Trump’s government. It required Ukraine to cede sovereignty over its land and resources to one country (the US), in order to defend itself from attacks by another (Russia).
These terms were highly exploitative of a country fighting against a years-long military occupation. In addition, they violated Ukraine’s constitution, which puts the ownership of Ukraine’s natural resources in the hands of the Ukrainian people. Were Zelensky to accept this, he would have faced a tremendous backlash from the public.
In comparison, the new deal sounds like a strategic and (potentially) commercial win for Ukraine.
First, this agreement is more just, and it’s aligned with Ukraine’s short- and medium-term interests. Zelenksy describes it as an “equal partnership” that will modernise Ukraine.
Under the terms, Ukraine will set up a United States–Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund for foreign investments into the country’s economy, which will be jointly governed by both countries.
https://embed.bsky.app/embed/did:plc:miwyf5eoyo33nj2y4gzilfc5/app.bsky.feed.post/3lo2ymjturk2v?id=8545030027729192&ref_url=https%253A%252F%252Ftheconversation.com%252Fwhy-zelensky-not-trump-may-have-won-the-us-ukraine-minerals-deal-255875
Ukraine will contribute 50% of the income from royalties and licenses to develop critical minerals, oil and gas reserves, while the US can make its contributions in-kind, such as through military assistance or technology transfers.
Ukraine maintains ownership over its natural resources and state enterprises. And the licensing agreements will not require substantial changes to the country’s laws, or disrupt its future integration with Europe.
Importantly, there is no mention of retroactive debts for the US military assistance already received by Ukraine. This would have created a dangerous precedent, allowing other nations to seek to claim similar debts from Ukraine.
Finally, the deal also signals the Trump administration’s commitment to “a free, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine” – albeit, still without any security guarantees.
Profits may be a long time coming
Unsurprisingly, the Trump administration and conservative media in the US are framing the deal as a win.
For too long, Trump argues, Ukraine has enjoyed US taxpayer-funded military assistance, and such assistance now has a price tag. The administration has described the deal to Americans as a profit-making endeavour that can recoup monies spent defending Ukrainian interests.
But in reality, profits are a long way off.
The terms of the agreement clearly state the fund’s investment will be directed at new resource projects. Existing operations and state-owned projects will fall outside the terms of the agreement.
Mining projects typically work within long time frames. The move from exploration to production is a slow, high-risk and enormously expensive process. It can often take over a decade.
Add to this complexity the fact that some experts are sceptical Ukraine even has enormously valuable reserves. And to bring any promising deposits to market will require major investments.
Published: May 5, 2025 10:33pm EDT
Authors
- Eve WarburtonResearch Fellow, Department of Political and Social Change, and Director, Indonesia Institute, Australian National University
- Olga BoichakSenior Lecturer in Digital Cultures, Australian Research Council DECRA fellow, University of Sydney
Disclosure statement
Eve Warburton receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Westpac Scholars Trust.
Olga Boichak is a director of the Foundation of Ukrainian Studies in Australia. She receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Westpac Scholars Trust.
Partners
University of Sydney and Australian National University provide funding as members of The Conversation AU.
We believe in the free flow of information
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.Republish this article
Last week, the Trump administration signed a deal with Ukraine that gives it privileged access to Ukraine’s natural resources.
Some news outlets described the deal as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “caving” to US President Donald Trump’s demands.
But we see the agreement as the result of clever bargaining on the part of Ukraine’s war-time president.
So, what does the deal mean for Ukraine? And will this help strengthen America’s mineral supply chains?
Ukraine’s natural resource wealth
Ukraine is home to 5% of the world’s critical mineral wealth, including 22 of the 34 minerals identified by the European Union as vital for defence, construction and high-tech manufacturing.
However, there’s a big difference between resources (what’s in the ground) and reserves (what can be commercially exploited). Ukraine’s proven mineral reserves are limited.
Further, Ukraine has an estimated mineral wealth of around US$14.8 trillion (A$23 trillion), but more than half of this is in territories currently occupied by Russia.
What does the new deal mean for Ukraine?
American support for overseas conflict is usually about securing US economic interests — often in the form of resource exploitation. From the Middle East to Asia, US interventions abroad have enabled access for American firms to other countries’ oil, gas and minerals.
But the first iteration of the Ukraine mineral deal, which Zelensky rejected in February, had been an especially brazen resource grab by Trump’s government. It required Ukraine to cede sovereignty over its land and resources to one country (the US), in order to defend itself from attacks by another (Russia).
These terms were highly exploitative of a country fighting against a years-long military occupation. In addition, they violated Ukraine’s constitution, which puts the ownership of Ukraine’s natural resources in the hands of the Ukrainian people. Were Zelensky to accept this, he would have faced a tremendous backlash from the public.
In comparison, the new deal sounds like a strategic and (potentially) commercial win for Ukraine.
First, this agreement is more just, and it’s aligned with Ukraine’s short- and medium-term interests. Zelenksy describes it as an “equal partnership” that will modernise Ukraine.
Under the terms, Ukraine will set up a United States–Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund for foreign investments into the country’s economy, which will be jointly governed by both countries.
https://embed.bsky.app/embed/did:plc:miwyf5eoyo33nj2y4gzilfc5/app.bsky.feed.post/3lo2ymjturk2v?id=8545030027729192&ref_url=https%253A%252F%252Ftheconversation.com%252Fwhy-zelensky-not-trump-may-have-won-the-us-ukraine-minerals-deal-255875
Ukraine will contribute 50% of the income from royalties and licenses to develop critical minerals, oil and gas reserves, while the US can make its contributions in-kind, such as through military assistance or technology transfers.
Ukraine maintains ownership over its natural resources and state enterprises. And the licensing agreements will not require substantial changes to the country’s laws, or disrupt its future integration with Europe.
Importantly, there is no mention of retroactive debts for the US military assistance already received by Ukraine. This would have created a dangerous precedent, allowing other nations to seek to claim similar debts from Ukraine.
Finally, the deal also signals the Trump administration’s commitment to “a free, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine” – albeit, still without any security guarantees.
Profits may be a long time coming
Unsurprisingly, the Trump administration and conservative media in the US are framing the deal as a win.
For too long, Trump argues, Ukraine has enjoyed US taxpayer-funded military assistance, and such assistance now has a price tag. The administration has described the deal to Americans as a profit-making endeavour that can recoup monies spent defending Ukrainian interests.
But in reality, profits are a long way off.
The terms of the agreement clearly state the fund’s investment will be directed at new resource projects. Existing operations and state-owned projects will fall outside the terms of the agreement.
Mining projects typically work within long time frames. The move from exploration to production is a slow, high-risk and enormously expensive process. It can often take over a decade.
Add to this complexity the fact that some experts are sceptical Ukraine even has enormously valuable reserves. And to bring any promising deposits to market will require major investments.
