logo
Fantasy And Exploitation: The US-Ukraine Minerals Deal

Fantasy And Exploitation: The US-Ukraine Minerals Deal

Scoop02-05-2025
The agreement between Washington and Kyiv to create an investment fund to search for rare earth minerals has been seen as something of a turn by the Trump administration. From hectoring and mocking the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky before the cameras on his visit to the US capital two months ago, President Donald Trump had apparently softened. It was easy to forget that the minerals deal was already on the negotiating table and would have been reached but for Zelensky's fateful and ill-tempered ambush. Dreams of accessing Ukrainian reserves of such elements as graphite, titanium and lithium were never going to dissipate.
Details remain somewhat sketchy, but the agreement supposedly sets out a sharing of revenues in a manner satisfactory to the parties while floating, if only tentatively, the prospect of renewed military assistance. That assistance, however, would count as US investment in the fund. According to the White House, the US Treasury Department and US International Development Finance Corporation will work with Kyiv 'to finalize governance and advance this important partnership', one that ensures the US 'an economic stake in securing a free, peaceful, and sovereign future for Ukraine.'
In its current form, the agreement supposedly leaves it to Ukraine to determine what to extract in terms of the minerals and where this extraction is to take place. A statement from the US Treasury Department also declared that, 'No state or person who financed or supplied the Russian war machine will be allowed to benefit from the reconstruction of Ukraine.'
Ukraine's Minister of Economy, Yulia Svyrydenko, stated that the subsoil remained within the domain of Kyiv's ownership, while the fund would be 'structured' on an equal basis 'jointly managed by Ukraine and the United States' and financed by 'new licenses in the field of critical materials, oil and gas – generated after the Fund is created'. Neither party would 'hold a dominant vote – a reflection of equal partnership between our two nations.'
The minister also revealed that privatisation processes and managing state-owned companies would not be altered by the arrangements. 'Companies such as Ukrnafta and Energoatom will stay in state ownership.' There would also be no question of debt obligations owed by Kyiv to Washington.
That this remains a 'joint' venture is always bound to raise some suspicions, and nothing can conceal the predatory nature of an arrangement that permits US corporations and firms access to the critical resources of another country. For his part, Trump fantasised in a phone call to a town hall on the NewsNation network that the latest venture would yield 'much more in theory than the $350 billion' worth of aid he insists the Biden administration furnished Kyiv with.
Svyrydenko chose to see the Reconstruction Investment Fund as one that would 'attract global investment into our country' while still maintaining Ukrainian autonomy. Representative Gregory Meeks, the ranking Democrat on the House of Foreign Affairs Committee, thought otherwise, calling it 'Donald Trump's extortion of Ukraine deal'. Instead of focusing on the large, rather belligerent fly in the ointment – Russian President Vladimir Putin – the US president had 'demonstrated nothing but weakness' towards Moscow.
The war mongering wing of the Democrats were also in full throated voice. To make such arrangements in the absence of assured military support to Kyiv made the measure vacuous. 'Right now,' Democratic Senator Chris Murphy said on MSNBC television, 'all indications are that Donald Trump's policy is to hand Ukraine to Vladimir Putin, and in that case, this agreement isn't worth the paper that it's written on.'
On a certain level, Murphy has a point. Trump's firmness in holding to the bargain is often capricious. In September 2017, he reached an agreement with the then Afghan president Ashraf Ghani to permit US companies to develop Afghanistan's rare earth minerals. Having spent 16 years in Afghanistan up to that point, ways of recouping some of the costs of Washington's involvement were being considered. It was agreed, went a White House statement sounding all too familiar, 'that such initiatives would help American companies develop minerals critical to national security while growing Afghanistan's economy and creating new jobs in both countries, therefore defraying some of the costs of United States assistance as Afghans become more reliant.'
Ghani's precarious puppet regime was ultimately sidelined in favour of direct negotiations with the Taliban that eventually culminated in their return to power, leaving the way open for US withdrawal and a termination of any grand plans for mineral extraction.
A coterie of foreign policy analysts abounded with glowing statements at this supposedly impressive feat of Ukrainian diplomacy. Shelby Magid, deputy director of the Atlantic Council think tank's Eurasia Centre, thought it put Kyiv 'in their strongest position yet with Washington since Trump took office'. Ukraine had withstood 'tremendous pressure' to accept poorer proposals, showing 'that it is not just a junior partner that has to roll over and accept a bad deal'.
Time and logistics remain significant obstacles to the realisation of the agreement. As Ukraine's former minister of economic development and current head of Kyiv school of economics Tymofiy Mylovanov told the BBC, 'These resources aren't in a port or warehouse; they must be developed.' Svyrydenko had to also ruefully concede that vast resources of mineral deposits existed in territory occupied by Russian forces. There are also issues with unexploded mines. Any challenge to the global rare earth elements (REEs) market, currently dominated by China (60% share of production of raw materials; 85% share of global processing output; and 90% manufacturing share of rare earth magnets), will be long in coming.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Elon Musk says he has created a new US political party
Elon Musk says he has created a new US political party

RNZ News

time4 hours ago

  • RNZ News

Elon Musk says he has created a new US political party

Eloin Musk. Photo: AFP / Angela Weiss Elon Musk, an ex-ally of US President Donald Trump, said Saturday (US time) he has launched a new political party in the United States to challenge what the tech billionaire described as the country's "one-party system". Musk, the world's richest person and Trump's biggest political donor in the 2024 election, had a [ bitter falling out[ with the president after leading the Republican's effort to slash spending and cut federal jobs as head of the so-called Department of government Efficiency. "When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy," the Space X and Tesla boss posted on X, the social media platform that he owns. "Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom." Musk cited a poll - posted on X on Friday, US Independence Day - in which he asked whether respondents "want independence from the two-party (some would say uniparty) system" that has dominated US politics for some two centuries. The yes-or-no survey earned more than 1.2 million responses. "By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it!" he posted on Saturday. The Trump-Musk feud reignited in dramatic fashion late last month as Trump pushed Republicans in Congress to ram through his massive domestic agenda in the form of the One Big Beautiful Bill . Musk expressed fierce opposition to the legislation, and ruthlessly attacked its Republican backers for supporting "debt slavery". File photo. US President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference with Elon Musk in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on 30 May, 2025. Photo: AFP / Allison Robbert He quickly vowed to launch a new political party to challenge lawmakers who campaigned on reduced federal spending only to vote for the bill, which experts say will pile an extra US$3.4 trillion over a decade onto the US deficit. After Musk heavily criticized the flagship spending bill - which eventually passed Congress and was signed into law - Trump threatened to deport the tech tycoon and strip federal funds from his businesses. "We'll have to take a look," the president told reporters when asked if he would consider deporting Musk, who was born in South Africa and has held US citizenship since 2002. - AFP

Trump branded, browbeat and prevailed — but his big bill may come at a cost
Trump branded, browbeat and prevailed — but his big bill may come at a cost

1News

time5 hours ago

  • 1News

Trump branded, browbeat and prevailed — but his big bill may come at a cost

Barack Obama had the Affordable Care Act. Joe Biden had the Inflation Reduction Act. President Donald Trump will have the tax cuts. All were hailed in the moment and became ripe political targets in campaigns that followed. In Trump's case, the tax cuts may almost become lost in the debates over other parts of the multitrillion-dollar bill that Democrats say will force poor Americans off their health care and overturn a decade or more of energy policy. Through persuasion and browbeating, Trump forced nearly all congressional Republicans to line up behind his marquee legislation despite some of its unpalatable pieces. He followed the playbook that had marked his life in business before politics. He focused on branding — labelling the legislation the 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' — then relentlessly pushed to strong-arm it through Congress, solely on the votes of Republicans. ADVERTISEMENT But Trump's victory will soon be tested during the 2026 midterm elections where Democrats plan to run on a durable theme: that the Republican president favours the rich on tax cuts over poorer people who will lose their health care. Republican members of Congress reach to shake hands with Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., centre bottom, after Johnson signed President Donald Trump's signature bill of tax breaks and spending cuts (Source: Associated Press) Trump and Republicans argue that those who deserve coverage will retain it. Nonpartisan analysts, however, project significant increases to the number of uninsured. Meanwhile, the GOP's promise that the bill will turbocharge the economy will be tested at a time of uncertainty and trade turmoil. Trump has tried to counter the notion of favouring the rich with provisions that would reduce the taxes for people paid in tips and receiving overtime pay, two kinds of earners who represent a small share of the workforce. Extending the tax cuts from Trump's first term that were set to expire if Congress failed to act meant he could also argue that millions of people would avoid a tax increase. House Speaker Mike Johnson of La., points to President Donald Trump after he signed his signature bill of tax breaks and spending cuts at the White House, Friday, July 4, 2025, in Washington, surrounded by members of Congress (Source: Associated Press) ADVERTISEMENT To enact that and other expensive priorities, Republicans made steep cuts to Medicaid that ultimately belied Trump's promise that those on government entitlement programs 'won't be affected.' 'The biggest thing is, he's answering the call of the forgotten people. That's why his No. 1 request was the no tax on tips, the no tax on overtime, tax relief for seniors,' said Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo., chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. 'I think that's going to be the big impact.' Hard to reap the rewards Presidents have seen their signature legislative accomplishments unravelled by their successors or become a significant political liability for their party in subsequent elections. A central case for Biden's reelection was that the public would reward the Democrat for his legislative accomplishments. That never bore fruit as he struggled to improve his poll numbers driven down by concerns about his age and stubborn inflation. Since taking office in January, Trump has acted to gut tax breaks meant to boost clean energy initiatives that were part of Biden's landmark health care and climate bill. Obama's health overhaul, which the Democrat signed into law in March 2010, led to a political bloodbath in the midterms that fall. ADVERTISEMENT Its popularity only became potent when Republicans tried to repeal it in 2017. Whatever political boost Trump may have gotten from his first-term tax cuts in 2017 did not help him in the 2018 midterms, when Democrats regained control of the House, or in 2020 when he lost to Biden. 'I don't think there's much if any evidence from recent or even not-so-recent history of the president's party passing a big one-party bill and getting rewarded for it,' said Kyle Kondik, an elections analyst with the nonpartisan University of Virginia's Center for Politics. Social net setbacks Democrats hope they can translate their policy losses into political gains. During an Oval Office appearance in January, Trump pledged he would 'love and cherish Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.' 'We're not going to do anything with that, other than if we can find some abuse or waste, we'll do something,' Trump said. 'But the people won't be affected. It will only be more effective and better.' ADVERTISEMENT That promise is far removed from what Trump and the Republican Party ultimately chose to do, paring back not only Medicaid but also food assistance for the poor to make the math work on their sweeping bill. It would force 11.8 million more people to become uninsured by 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office, whose estimates the GOP has dismissed. 'In Trump's first term, Democrats in Congress prevented bad outcomes. They didn't repeal the (Affordable Care Act), and we did Covid relief together. This time is different,' said Senator Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii. 'Hospitals will close, people will die, the cost of electricity will go up, and people will go without food.' Some unhappy Republicans Senator Thom Tillis, R-N.C., repeatedly argued the legislation would lead to drastic coverage losses in his home state and others, leaving them vulnerable to political attacks similar to what Democrats faced after they enacted 'Obamacare.' With his warnings unheeded, Tillis announced he would not run for reelection, after he opposed advancing the bill and enduring Trump's criticism. ADVERTISEMENT 'If there is a political dimension to this, it is the extraordinary impact that you're going to have in states like California, blue states with red districts,' Tillis said. "The narrative is going to be overwhelmingly negative in states like California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey.' Even Senator Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who eventually became the decisive vote in the Senate that ensured the bill's passage, said the legislation needed more work and she urged the House to revise it. Lawmakers there did not. Early polling suggests that Trump's bill is deeply unpopular, including among independents and a healthy share of Republicans. White House officials said their own research does not reflect that. So far, it's only Republicans celebrating the victory. That seems OK with the president. In a speech in Iowa after the bill passed, he said Democrats only opposed it because they 'hated Trump.' That didn't bother him, he said, 'because I hate them, too.'

Hamas says ready to start Gaza ceasefire talks 'immediately'
Hamas says ready to start Gaza ceasefire talks 'immediately'

RNZ News

time6 hours ago

  • RNZ News

Hamas says ready to start Gaza ceasefire talks 'immediately'

Photo: JACK GUEZ Israel was considering its response after Hamas said it was ready to start talks "immediately" on a US-sponsored proposal for a Gaza ceasefire . The security Cabinet was expected to meet after the end of the Jewish sabbath at sundown to discuss Israel's next steps, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prepared to head to Washington for talks on Monday with US President Donald Trump. Trump has been making a renewed push to end nearly 21 months of war in Gaza, where the civil defence agency said 35 people were killed in Israeli military operations on Saturday. "No decision has been made yet on that issue," an Israeli government official told AFP when asked about Hamas's positive response to the latest ceasefire proposal. Hamas made its announcement late Friday after holding consultations with other Palestinian factions. "The movement is ready to engage immediately and seriously in a cycle of negotiations on the mechanism to put in place" the US-backed truce proposal, the militant group said in a statement. Two Palestinian sources close to the discussions told AFP that the proposal included a 60-day truce, during which Hamas would release 10 living hostages and several bodies in exchange for Palestinians detained by Israel. However, they said, the group was also demanding certain conditions for Israel's withdrawal, guarantees against a resumption of fighting during negotiations and the return of the UN-led aid distribution system. Hamas ally Islamic Jihad said it supported ceasefire talks, but demanded guarantees that Israel "will not resume its aggression" once hostages held in Gaza are freed. Trump, when asked about Hamas's response aboard Air Force One, said: "That's good. They haven't briefed me on it. We have to get it over with. We have to do something about Gaza." The war in Gaza began with Hamas's October 2023 attack on Israel, which sparked a massive Israeli offensive in the territory that aimed to destroy Hamas and bring home all the hostages seized by Palestinian militants. Two previous ceasefires mediated by Qatar, Egypt and the United States secured temporary halts in fighting and the return of Israeli hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners. Of the 251 hostages taken by Palestinian militants during the October 2023 attack, 49 are still held in Gaza, including 27 the Israeli military says are dead. The Egyptian foreign ministry said Saturday that top diplomat Badr Abdelatty held a phone call with Washington's main representative in the truce talks, Steve Witkoff, to discuss recent developments "and preparations for holding indirect meetings between the two parties concerned to reach an agreement". Meanwhile, ahead of its weekly protest demanding the return of the hostages, the main group representing their families renewed its call for a negotiated agreement to bring them home. "This is the hour to bring about a comprehensive deal that will guarantee the return of the last hostage," the Hostages and Missing Families Forum said. But recent efforts to broker a new truce have repeatedly failed, with the primary point of contention being Israel's rejection of Hamas's demand for guarantees of a lasting ceasefire. Nearly 21 months of war have created dire humanitarian conditions for the more than two million people in the Gaza Strip, where Israel has recently expanded its military operations. A US- and Israel-backed group, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, took the lead in food distribution in the territory in late May, when Israel partially lifted a more than two-month blockade on aid deliveries. The group said two of its US staff members were wounded "in a targeted terrorist attack" at one of its aid centres in southern Gaza's Khan Yunis on Saturday, adding that reports indicated a pair of assailants "threw two grenades at the Americans". The Israeli military said it had evacuated the injured. UN agencies and major aid groups have refused to cooperate with the GHF over concerns it was designed to cater to Israeli military objectives. Its operations have been marred by near-daily reports of Israeli fire on people waiting to collect rations. UN human rights office spokeswoman Ravina Shamdasani said Friday that more than 500 people have been killed waiting to access food from GHF distribution points. But GHF chairman Johnnie Moore, a Christian evangelical leader allied to Trump, on Wednesday rejected calls for the lead role in Gaza aid distributions to revert to UN agencies, saying: "We will not be shut down." Civil defence spokesman Mahmud Bassal said Israeli military operations killed 35 people across Gaza on Saturday. Media restrictions in Gaza and difficulties in accessing many areas mean AFP is unable to independently verify the tolls and details provided by the civil defence agency. Contacted by AFP, the Israeli military said it could not comment on specific strikes without precise coordinates. The Hamas attack of October 2023 resulted in the deaths of 1219 people, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally based on Israeli official figures. Israel's retaliatory campaign has killed at least 57,338 people in Gaza, also mostly civilians, according to the Hamas-run territory's health ministry. The United Nations considers the figures reliable. - AFP

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store