The signing of the minerals deal between the United States and Ukraine on 30 April is one of several headline stories about the Russian war in Ukraine. Claims about the value of Ukraine’s natural resources have also often confused resources or deposits—that is, the minerals that are geologically available—with reserves—the minerals it would be economically […]
The signing of the minerals deal between the United States and Ukraine on 30 April is one of several headline stories about the Russian war in Ukraine. The agreement and its demands, a precondition for continued US support for Ukraine, would have been unthinkable only a few months ago. While substantially improved from its earliest iterations, the profit-sharing deal overrides Ukrainian domestic legislation without offering any formal security guarantees in return. The agreement also comes at a time when the USA is pressuring Ukraine to cede territory while considering economic concessions to Russia in its attempts to secure a peace deal. This now represents a new geopolitical reality and baseline, for Ukraine’s advancement towards either a negotiated peace or a continued fight against Russian aggression.
The minerals deal’s underlying logic—that economic incentives create political stakes in peace and development—is a sensible one in theory. The deal could make it easier for Ukraine to access international capital markets and help it to attract much-needed post-war reconstruction and industrial projects. An active and long-term US stake in the safety and profitability of Ukrainian economic assets may also serve as a low-level deterrent to Russia. Indeed, the impetus for the deal first came from Ukraine, which for several years had been making overtures to Western investors and partners, advertising its subsoil wealth and the potential economic payout of partnership.
