Why Zelensky-not Trump “won the US Ukraine minerals deal

Last week, the Trump administration signed a contract with Ukraine, which grants privileged access to the natural resources of Ukraine.

Some news agencies described the deal as the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who “hit” the demands of US President Donald Trump.

However, we see the agreement as a result of clever negotiations of the Ukraine war president.

What does the deal mean for Ukraine? And will this help to strengthen America's mineral supply chains?

Wealth of Ukraine natural resources

In Ukraine, 5% of the worldwide critical mineral assets, including 22 of the 34 minerals identified by the European Union, houses as important for defense, construction and high-tech production.

However, there is a big difference between resources (in the ground) and reserves (which can be used commercially). The proven mineral reserves of Ukraine are limited.

In addition, Ukraine has an estimated mineral assets of around 14.8 trillion dollars (23 trillion US dollars), but more than half of which are currently occupied by Russia.

What does the New Deal mean for Ukraine?

The American support of conflicts in overseas is usually about securing the US economic interests – often in the form of resource exploitation. From the Middle East to Asia, US interventions abroad have enabled the access of American companies to oil, gas and minerals from other countries.

However, the first iteration of Ukraine mineral agreement, which Zelensky had rejected in February, was a particularly brazen decline in resources from Trump's government. Ukraine had to hand over sovereignty over its country and its resources to a country (the USA) to defend itself before attacks by another (Russia).

These terms were very exploitative for a country that fought for years of military occupation. In addition, they have violated the constitution of Ukraine, which brings ownership of the natural resources of Ukraine into the hands of the Ukrainian people. If Zelensky were accepted, he would have suspended an enormous counter reaction to the public.

In comparison, the New Deal sounds like a strategic and (potential) commercial victory for Ukraine.

First, this agreement is fairer and corresponds to the short and medium-term interests of Ukraine. Zelksy describes it as a “same partnership” that will modernize Ukraine.

As part of the conditions, Ukraine will set up a reconstruction fund from the United States – Ukraine for foreign investments in the country's economy, which is jointly ruled by both countries.

Ukraine will contribute 50% to the income from license fees and licenses for the development of critical minerals, oil and gas reserves, while the USA can make its contributions, e.g. B. through military support or technology broadcasts.

Ukraine retains ownership of its natural resources and state companies. And the license agreements will require significant changes to the laws of the country or disrupt future integration in Europe.

It is important that retroactive debts are not mentioned for the military support in the United States already received by Ukraine. This would have created a dangerous precedent that would have made it possible for other nations to claim similar debts from Ukraine.

Finally, the deal also signals the commitment of the Trump government for “free, sovereign and successful Ukraine” – although still without security guarantees.

Profits can come for a long time

It is not surprising that the Trump administration and the conservative media in the United States will make the deal as victory.

Trump argues too long, Ukraine has enjoyed military support financed by the US taxpayers, and this support now has a prize. The administration has described the deal to the Americans as a profitable endeavor that can regain the funds that defend the Ukrainian interests.

But in reality profits are far away.

The conditions of the agreement clearly state that the fund's investment is directed to new resource projects. Existing operations and state -owned projects fall outside the conditions of the agreement.

Mining projects usually work within long -term framework. The change from exploration to production is a slow, risky and enormously expensive process. It can often take over a decade.

In addition, there is this complexity that some experts are skeptical Ukraine that even have enormously valuable reserves. And to bring promising deposits onto the market, large investments will require.

What may be more important

However, it is possible that profits for the United States are a secondary calculation. China boxing is likely to be more important.

As in other western nations, the USA is desperate to diversify its critical mineral supply chains.

China not only controls a large part of the known deposits of rare earths in the world, but also has a monopoly on the processing of the critical minerals that are used in green energy and defense technologies.

The United States fears that China arm its market dominance against strategic competitors. For this reason, the western governments are increasingly becoming the resilience of the mineral supply chain for their foreign policy and defense strategies of central importance.

In view of the proximity of Beijing's closeness to Moscow and its in-depth cooperation with natural resources, the US Ukraine deal of Russia and in a broader sense can prevent China-Daran accessing Ukrainian minerals. The conditions of the agreement are expressly: “States and persons who have a disadvantage against Ukraine must not benefit from the reorganization”.

After all, the performance of “The Deal” is just as important for Trump. To get Zelensky to sign the dotted line is progress in itself, plays Trump's base at home and exerts pressure on the Russian President Vladimir Putin to get to the table.

So the deal is a victory for Zelensky because it gives the United States a share of independent Ukraine. But even if the critical mineral reserves of Ukraine turn out to be less valuable than expected, it may not be a role for Trump.