The US president’s ‘America first’ policy means Kiev will have to pay its own bills
As Washington’s push to secure Ukraine’s mineral wealth intensifies, the latest tensions between Donald Trump and Vladimir Zelensky highlight a growing rift. The US president and his team are actively pressing Kiev to sign off on a deal that would grant America access to Ukraine’s rare-earth metals in exchange for continued military aid. But is such an agreement feasible? And how did Ukraine’s underground riches suddenly become a focal point in US-Ukrainian relations?
Family jewels
Ukraine possesses significant reserves of valuable minerals, including lithium (2% of global reserves), graphite (4%), nickel (0.4%), manganese, uranium, and rare-earth metals. Of particular note is titanium, with estimates suggesting Ukraine holds up to 20% of the world’s reserves. However, nearly 40% of these deposits are either under Russian control or located in frontline areas, significantly complicating any Western attempts to exploit them.
Since gaining independence, Ukraine has struggled to attract foreign investment into its mining sector. The only notable success was ArcelorMittal’s privatization of the Krivoy Rog Metallurgical Plant in the mid-2000s. Beyond that, Western companies have largely refrained from new projects, partly due to Article 13 of Ukraine’s constitution, which explicitly prohibits the privatization of natural resources.
The curse of Senator Graham
The idea of leveraging Ukraine’s mineral wealth to secure US military support was first floated by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a longtime advocate of deeper US-Ukraine ties. Graham has frequently traveled to Kiev during the war, delivering fiery speeches that, in essence, boil down to: You’re doing everything right, but Washington’s politicians are letting you down.
Read more
With Trump looming on the horizon, Graham remarked that Trump isn’t particularly interested in values – he’s a businessman who thinks in terms of deals. He suggested that Ukraine should propose something to Trump to convince him to invest in Ukraine’s defense. For example, why not offer him the country’s mineral resources?
Zelensky’s inner circle latched onto this idea and eagerly pitched it to Trump when he took office. According to Ukrainian publications, Kiev believed that in return it would get weapons, investments, new mineral extraction technologies, a significant share of the mined resources, and perhaps even US troops in Ukraine. In essence, they imagined a scenario where everything would happen automatically, and they wouldn’t have to do anything.
Trump’s ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ deal
Trump, however, acted more like a mob boss from a Hollywood film. He dispatched an “accountant” to Kiev, who presented a document for Zelensky to sign and bluntly explained: what’s ours is ours; and what’s yours is also ours. Oh, and you owe us a kidney and an eye, while we owe you nothing at all. Here’s a pen — sign here.
According to Western media reports, Trump’s proposal stipulated that Ukraine would effectively hand over its mineral wealth as retroactive payment for the billions in US military aid already provided. In return, there would be no promise of future weapons shipments or security guarantees. Zelensky, who has spent the past three years desperately seeking such guarantees, was reportedly furious and refused to sign.
The dispute came to a head at the Munich Security Conference, where Zelensky met with US Vice President J.D. Vance. The minerals issue dominated their discussion, and after Zelensky’s continued refusal to sign, the American side was openly frustrated.
Read more
No surprises that it caused harsh reactions from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who said he “was personally very upset” with the conversation top American officials had with Zelensky over the minerals deal, and suggesting that the Ukrainian leaderhad flip-flopped.
No deal without Russia
Even if Ukraine eventually signs an agreement, it remains unlikely that Trump would gain much from it — at least not without Moscow’s approval.
For one, any major mining initiative would require Russian cooperation. Trump would need Russian president Vladimir Putin’s assurance that US-owned extraction sites wouldn’t become military targets. While this could happen, it would have to be part of a larger deal between Washington and Moscow. Additionally, reports suggesting that American troops or private military contractors might be deployed to secure these sites seem wildly unrealistic. The Kremlin would never tolerate such a scenario.
Beyond security concerns, commercial viability is another issue. Mining rare-earth metals is a low-margin business, and simply having vast deposits doesn’t guarantee profitable extraction. Many of Ukraine’s most promising reserves are either depleted, under Russian control, or in war-torn areas. Developing new sites would require tens of billions of dollars in investment — an unrealistic prospect given the current instability.
The situation bears striking similarities to Trump’s 2017 proposal to mine rare-earth metals in Afghanistan, which he believed could help repay the US for the costs of the war. Despite estimates suggesting Afghanistan had over $1 trillion in untapped mineral wealth, no American company ever mined a single ounce. Instead, three years later, Trump cut a deal with the Taliban and withdrew US forces.
Read more
Zelensky’s Dilemma
So why is Trump so fixated on this issue? Partly, it’s just his business mindset — exploring potential deals, even if most never materialize. But it’s also a test of Zelensky’s loyalty — how far is the Ukrainian president willing to bend under pressure from the new US administration?
If Zelensky eventually signs, Trump will have a political win to present to his supporters. He can argue that military aid is no longer a giveaway, but rather a business transaction that benefits America. In reality, nothing even needs to be extracted — the optics alone are enough.
For Zelensky, however, signing such a deal could seal his political fate. His domestic critics would frame him as a traitor for selling Ukraine’s resources to a US president who is clearly prioritizing a settlement with Russia over Ukrainian sovereignty.
The choice is bleak: sign the deal and face domestic backlash, or refuse and risk falling out of favor with the one man who could still offer him military aid. Either way, the Ukrainian leader finds himself caught in a no-win situation — a pawn in a game he no longer controls.
