Fantasy And Exploitation: The US-Ukraine Minerals Deal
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
US Supreme Court approves deportation of migrants to South Sudan
The US Supreme Court has given the green light for the Trump administration to deport a group of migrants stranded at an American military base in Djibouti to war-torn South Sudan. The decision by the conservative-dominated top court comes 10 days after it cleared the way for the administration to
Scoop
6 hours ago
- Scoop
UN Human Rights Council Hears Grim Updates On Ukraine, Gaza And Global Racism
3 July 2025 Escalating conflict in Ukraine In an oral update, Ilze Brands Kehris, UN Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights, reported a sharp escalation in hostilities in Ukraine. Civilian casualties have surged, with April to June seeing nearly 50 per cent more deaths and injuries compared to the same period in 2024. 'More than 90 per cent of these casualties occurred in territory controlled by Ukraine,' she said, attributing the spike in part to intensified Russian drone and missile attacks. Attacks using airburst warheads and repeated strikes on hospitals have instilled 'terror and anxiety' among urban populations, she added. A June 16-17 nighttime attack in Kyiv killed more civilians than any other assault in the past year. While ceasefire negotiations have produced some humanitarian gains – such as the exchange of prisoners of war and the return of deceased soldiers – Ms. Kehris underscored harrowing conditions in detention. Over 117 former Ukrainian POWs interviewed by the UN rights office, OHCHR, reported torture, including sexual violence, in Russian captivity. Though less widespread, similar abuses have also been documented in unofficial Ukrainian detention facilities, prompting calls for transparent investigations. The report also noted ongoing human rights violations in territories occupied by Russia, including restrictions on civic space and the exercise of freedom of expression. 'Peace is more imperative than ever,' Ms. Kehris said, reiterating calls for an immediate cessation of hostilities in line with international law. Structural racism and intersectionality Ashwini K.P., Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, delivered a thematic report focused on intersectionality as a tool for racial justice. Drawing from experiences of Black feminists and expanded by studies focusing on Dalit, Indigenous, Muslim and Roma community members, the concept of intersectionality was presented as essential to dismantling systemic discrimination. 'Women of African descent, caste-oppressed communities, Roma, Arab and Muslim women, and other marginalized groups are disproportionately impacted due to overlapping forms of discrimination,' Ms. Ashwini said. Her report detailed how states can integrate an intersectional approach, emphasising data disaggregation, participatory policymaking, legal recognition of multiple discrimination and historical accountability. Ms. Ashwini highlighted the importance of reparatory justice for communities affected by colonialism and slavery and called on states – particularly those historically complicit – to implement bold reforms. Deepening crisis in Gaza Francesca Albanese, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, also reported to the Council, with grim update on Gaza. She described conditions as 'apocalyptic' and reported over 200,000 people killed or injured since 7 October 2023, when Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups attacked Israeli communities – killing at least 1,200 people and taking more than 250 as hostages. 'In Gaza, Palestinians continue to endure suffering beyond imagination,' Ms. Albanese said, describing the Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation as a 'death trap – engineered to kill or force the flight of a starved, bombarded, emaciated population marked for elimination.' She also accused Israel of using the conflict as an opportunity to test new weapons and technology against the population of the enclave 'without restraint'. 'The forever-occupation has provided an optimal testing ground for arms manufacturers and big tech with little oversight and zero accountability – while investors, and private and public institutions have profited handsomely,' she said. 'We must reverse the tide,' Ms. Albanese urged, calling on Member States to impose a full arms embargo on Israel, suspend all trade agreements and investment relation and enforce accountability, 'ensuring that corporate entities face legal consequences for their involvement in serious violations of international law.' Independent rights experts Special Rapporteurs are independent human rights experts appointed and mandated by the Human Rights Council – the UN's highest intergovernmental forum on human rights. Forming a part of its Special Procedures, Special Rapporteurs and other independent experts are mandated to monitor and assess the rights situation in certain thematic or country situations. They work in their individual capacity, are not UN staff and do not receive a salary.
1News
7 hours ago
- 1News
House approves Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax bill ahead of July 4 deadline
House Republicans propelled US President Donald Trump's US$4.5 trillion (NZ$7.4 trillion) tax breaks and spending cuts bill to final congressional passage overnight, overcoming multiple setbacks to approve his signature second-term policy package before a Fourth of July deadline. The tight roll call, 218-214, came at a potentially high political cost, with two Republicans joining all Democrats opposed. GOP leaders worked overnight and the President himself leaned on a handful of skeptics to drop their opposition and send the bill to him to sign into law. Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York delayed voting by holding the floor for more than eight hours with a record-breaking speech against the bill. "We have a big job to finish," said House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. "With one big beautiful bill we are going to make this country stronger, safer and more prosperous than ever before." The outcome delivers a milestone for the President, by his Friday goal, and for his party. It was a long-shot effort to compile a lengthy list of GOP priorities into what they called his "one big beautiful bill", an 800-plus page measure. With Democrats unified in opposition, the bill will become a defining measure of Trump's return to the White House, aided by Republican control of Congress. Tax breaks and safety net cuts ADVERTISEMENT At its core, the package's priority was US$4.5 trillion (NZ$7.4 trillion) in tax breaks enacted in 2017 during Trump's first term that would expire if Congress failed to act, along with new ones. This included allowing workers to deduct tips and overtime pay, and a US$6000 (NZ$9900) deduction for most older adults earning less than US$75,000 (NZ$123,619) a year. There was also a hefty investment, some US$350 billion ($577 billion), in national security and Trump's deportation agenda and to help develop the 'Golden Dome' defensive system over the US. To help offset the lost tax revenue, the package includes $1.2 trillion (NZ$2 trillion) in cutbacks to the Medicaid health care and food stamps, largely by imposing new work requirements, including for some parents and older people, and a major rollback of green energy tax credits. House staffers carry American flags through a corridor outside the House chamber which will be used for a ceremony with Speaker of the House Mike Johnson. (Source: Associated Press) The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the package would add US$3.3 trillion (NZ$5.4 trillion) to the deficit over the decade and 11.8 million more people would go without health coverage. "This was a generational opportunity to deliver the most comprehensive and consequential set of conservative reforms in modern history, and that's exactly what we're doing," said Representative Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, the House Budget Committee chairman. Democrats united against 'ugly bill' ADVERTISEMENT Democrats unified against the bill as a tax giveaway to the rich paid for on the backs of the working class and most vulnerable in society, what they called "trickle down cruelty". Tensions ran high in the chamber. Jeffries began the speech at 4.53am EDT and finished at 1.37pm EDT, 8 hours, 44 minutes later, a record, as he argued against what he called Trump's "big ugly bill". House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., left, speaks in the House chamber as House Democrats stand to applaud him. (Source: Associated Press) "We're better than this," Jeffries said, who used a leader's prerogative for unlimited debate and read letter after letter from Americans writing about their reliance of the health care programmes. "I never thought that I'd be on the House floor saying that this is a crime scene," Jeffries said. "It's a crime scene, going after the health, and the safety, and the well-being of the American people." And as Democrats, he said, "We want no part of it". ADVERTISEMENT Hauling the package through the Congress has been difficult from the start. Republicans have struggled mightily with the bill nearly every step of the way quarrelling in the House and Senate, and often succeeding only by the narrowest of margins: just one vote. The Senate passed the package days earlier with Vice President JD Vance breaking the tie vote. The slim majority in the House left Republicans little room for defections. Political costs of saying no Despite their discomfort with various aspects of the sprawling package, in some ways it became too big to fail — in part because Republicans found it difficult to buck Trump. As Thursday's stalled floor action dragged overnight Trump railed against the delays. "What are the Republicans waiting for???" the president said in a midnight post. "What are you trying to prove???" Donald Trump presses for votes to his big beautiful bill. (Source: Truth Social) ADVERTISEMENT Johnson relied heavily on White House Cabinet secretaries, lawyers and others to satisfy sceptical GOP holdouts. Moderate Republicans worried about the severity of cuts while conservatives pressed for steeper reductions. Lawmakers said they were being told the administration could provide executive actions, projects or other provisions in their districts back home. The alternative was clear. Republicans who staked out opposition to the bill, including Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, and Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, were being warned by Trump's well-funded political operation. Tillis soon after announced he would not seek re-election. Rollback of past presidential agendas In many ways, the package is a repudiation of the agendas of the last two Democratic presidents, a chiselling away at the Medicaid expansion from Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act, and a pullback of Joe Biden's climate change strategies in the Inflation Reduction Act. Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., the top Democrat on the House Rules Committee, waits on the marble stairway outside the House chamber. (Source: Associated Press) Democrats have described the bill in dire terms, warning that cuts to Medicaid, which some 80 million Americans rely on, would result in lives lost. Food stamps that help feed more than 40 million people would "rip food from the mouths of hungry children, hungry veterans and hungry seniors," Jeffries said. Republicans say the tax breaks will prevent a tax hike on households and grow the economy. They maintain they are trying to rightsize the safety net programmes for the population they were initially designed to serve, mainly pregnant women, the disabled and children, and root out what they describe as waste, fraud and abuse. ADVERTISEMENT The Tax Policy Centre, which provides nonpartisan analysis of tax and budget policy, projected the bill would result next year in a $150 tax break for the lowest quintile of Americans, a US$1750 (NZ$2885) tax cut for the middle quintile and a US$10,950 (NZ$18,053) tax cut for the top quintile. That's compared with what they would face if the 2017 tax cuts expired.
