The United States – in the new predatory mode of the Trumpian era – extends its hand towards the treasure hidden underground in Kyiv – titanium, lithium, rare earths – promising investments in exchange for a slice of the proceeds and evoking security guarantees that are not yet there. But as the draft circulates online these hours(circulated by the Kyiv Independent), one question hovers: will it be a pact for security and rebirth, a barter that will mortgage the future of a nation, or an intolerable threat?

The text of the agreement is not sufficient to answer this, because there are too many grey areas and too many questions left deliberately undefined, postponed to a later agreement(Fund Agreement) on the structure and governance of the joint ‘Reconstruction Fund‘, financed in large part by the exploitation of Ukraine’s vast (but largely unexplored) mineral resources.

From the ‘colonial’ proposal to the current compromise

The draft agreement is the result of a long and complex negotiation. The Trump administration had initially proposed to demand up to USD 500 billion in ‘reimbursement’ for US aid – a figure considered disproportionate compared to the 110-120 billion actually disbursed by the United States (about one third, in short, of the 350 billion in aid repeatedly claimed by the American president). This approach was branded as ‘colonial’ by the Ukrainians, including President Volodymyr Zelensky, who had boldly rejected it, considering it an excessive cession of economic sovereignty at a time of extreme vulnerability.

The new draft, leaked and awaiting signature in Washington by the end of February, appears to be more balanced: it envisages the creation of a Joint Reconstruction Fund, to which Ukraine would contribute 50% of the income from future mining projects (including oil and gas, however). Excluded are already exploited deposits and ‘historical’ sources of energy revenue, such as those of Naftogaz and Ukrnafta, which are today crucial for the state budget. Although ambiguities about governance details remain, this form of ‘co-participation’ represents a softening of initial US claims.

The framework of the agreement: a Reconstruction Fund

According to the draft, the Fund would be jointly owned: the US would commit to maintaining a ‘long-term financial contribution‘ to promote Ukraine’s stability and economic prosperity. The stated goal is to monetise natural resources – minerals, hydrocarbons and other raw materials – and redeploy a portion of the proceeds into infrastructure and industrial projects on Ukrainian territory.

The thorniest clause remains the profit share and capital management. The current version stipulates that the Ukrainian government cannot sell or dispose of its interest in the fund without notice, and that both governments (Kyiv and Washington) have equal veto rights over substantial changes. However, it remains unclear what the actual decision-making power of the US investors will be and whether Ukraine will have a sufficient voice in setting economic priorities.

The potential Ukrainian underground treasure

The main reason for US interest is obvious: Ukraine is considered one of the most promising countries in Europe in terms of mineral wealth. Among the most significant deposits:

1. Titanium. Ukraine is the world’s 11th largest producer and has huge reserves in the Kirovohrad region and elsewhere. This metal is crucial for the aerospace, medical and automotive industries. According to Forbes.ua, titanium could represent a billion-dollar component of total resources if properly exploited.
2. Lithium. Third estimated reserves in Europe, with deposits in Shevchenkivske (Donetsk) and Dobra (Kirovohrad). Lithium is strategic for the production of electric batteries and the global energy transition. At the moment, however, the mining areas are not in commercial production and many are close to front lines, exposing them to war and security risks.
3. Rare earths. Despite official proclamations, Ukraine does not seem to compete with China, which alone accounts for 70% of the world’s production of these 17 key elements for electronics and green technologies. Studies often date back to the Soviet era and there is a lack of reliable modern data. The value is more geopolitical than economic in the immediate term.
4. Graphite. Ukraine holds up to 20% of the world’s reserves; a significant potential for batteries and various industries. Again, the war has affected many mining areas, putting the brakes on production expansion.
5. Other minerals and energy. Iron (around 10% of world reserves), manganese, uranium, nickel, cobalt and natural gas complete the picture. However, over 70% of these riches are concentrated in the Donbass, an area still partly under Russian control or influence.

The security issue and the absence of military commitments

If from the economic point of view the agreement appears more balanced than the first drafts, many perplexities emerge on the security side. The United States has not included formal military guarantees in defence of Ukraine: the agreement merely mentions generic ‘measures to ensure peace and joint investments’, a reference deemed insufficient by Kyiv.

The lack of a clear commitment against possible future Russian aggression also represents a political risk: part of Ukrainian public opinion fears ‘selling out’ its resources without getting a security umbrella in return. Some members of the Ukrainian government – such as Deputy Prime Minister Olha Stefanishyna – have spoken of a ‘broader framework’ of which the agreement on resources should be a piece, but at the moment the details have not been disclosed, generating uncertainty both in the business world and among citizens.

Implications for Europe, prospects and unknowns

The European Union is closely observing the negotiations. In 2021, i.e. before the Russian invasion, Brussels had signed a memorandum with Kiev on critical minerals for the energy transition; yet, the possible agreement with the United States risks downgrading Europe’s role as a major economic partner.

The agreement, in its current form, is more symbolic than immediately operational. Ukraine’s mining potential is very large on paper, but the investment required to extract and process these resources – especially in the context of conflict – remains an unknown.Without a stable ceasefire and modernised infrastructure, the real value of titanium, lithium and graphite will remain largely theoretical. Even American companies may hesitate to commit capital if high risks and inaccurate geological data remain. Not only that, think tanks such as the Carnegie Endowment have noted that the US-Ukraine agreement seems to focus on access to raw materials to reduce dependence on China, but does not address the problem of refining. The US itself has limited capacity in this area (a meagre 1 per cent of globally refined rare earths, according to USGS 2023), and is still dependent on Beijing for many finished products.

Domestically, the parliament in Kyiv will have to ratify the agreement, in accordance with the Ukrainian law on international treaties. Protests or requests for clarification cannot be ruled out, given that the Ukrainian Constitution (Art. 13) states that the subsoil belongs to the people.

Conclusions

The draft agreement and the general design of the US-Ukraine ‘Reconstruction Fund’ is without a doubt a step forward compared to the tensions that have been unleashed in recent days, following the meeting between the American and Russian delegations in Riyadh. For the US, beyond Trump’s excessive claims, it is a strategic move to secure a privileged role in access to key raw materials, reducing dependence on suppliers such as China and Russia. For Ukraine, it opens up prospects for post-conflict investment: a signal that the country will not be abandoned to its fate. However, the absence of explicit military and security commitments, the still nebulous governance of the Fund, and the uncertainty over control of the eastern regions (rich in certain minerals and rare earths) undermine the real scope and feasibility of the deal.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of this agreement – if finalised – will depend on the ability to translate Ukraine’s mining potential into concrete development projects, on the actual injection of American capital and, above all, on the end of the conflict and the stabilisation of Ukraine. Until then, the document appears more an act of political will (or Trumpian marketing) than a flywheel destined to produce tangible results in the short term. We’ll just have to watch: with Trump we live in the day-to-day.