FT: Ukraine’s officials call US minerals deal “robbery” as Washington expands demands

The draft agreement, reviewed by the Financial Times, expands Washington’s demands for control over Ukraine’s lucrative natural resources, granting the US a veto over a proposed investment fund and prioritizing its financial interests.
The White House in Washington DC, illustrative image: Wikimedia Commons.
The White House in Washington DC. The illustrative image: Wikimedia Commons.
FT: Ukraine’s officials call US minerals deal “robbery” as Washington expands demands

The US is pushing for a broad new agreement on the control of Ukraine’s rare minerals and energy assets, without offering Kyiv any security guarantees in return, while aggressively expanding its previous demands, according to the Financial Times.

A new draft agreement, sent to Kyiv on 23 March and reviewed by the journalists, goes beyond the initial joint economic deal reached last month as part of US President Donald Trump’s efforts to end Russia’s war and recoup billions in military aid.

Senior Ukrainian officials have warned that the proposal could undermine their country’s sovereignty, direct profits abroad, and deepen its dependence on Washington.

The document marks a sharp escalation in the Trump administration’s efforts to secure control over Ukraine’s lucrative natural resources as it pushes for an end to the war. It would cover all mineral resources, including oil and gas, across Ukraine’s entire territory.

Washington is demanding that Ukraine and the US establish a supervisory board to oversee a joint investment fund, which would distribute revenues from oil, gas, and mineral projects between the two nations.

The US would appoint three of the board’s five members, giving Washington full veto power over the fund. On 26 March, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that the agreement could be signed as early as next week.

However, three senior Ukrainian officials said that this was unlikely. One called the new US proposal “unfair,” while another likened it to “a robbery.”

A third official said a team of legal advisors had been brought in to help the government review the document and prepare a counterproposal.

The Ukrainians are expressing frustration over Trump’s increasing pressure to compromise in exchange for a ceasefire and lasting peace, even as the Kremlin shows no signs of ending its aggressive actions.

Speaking at the summit in Paris, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the US was “constantly” changing the terms of the agreement. However, he added that he did not want Washington to think Kyiv was opposed to the deal.

The new Trump administration proposal would replace the previous framework agreement on joint mineral resource development, which Kyiv and Washington agreed upon last month.

That deal, which would have established a fund in which Ukraine would contribute 50% of future mineral resource profits, was never signed following a catastrophic Oval Office meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy.

Under the new proposal, the fund would cover projects undertaken by the Ukrainian government itself, as well as those approved by Kyiv or state-owned entities.

The agreement also extends to infrastructure linked to natural resource extraction, such as roads, railways, pipelines, ports, and processing plants.

Funds generated under the latest proposal would be converted directly into foreign currency and sent abroad, while Ukraine would be responsible for covering any compensation in case of delays or disputes.

The US would receive royalty payments from the fund before Ukraine, with a 4% surcharge, and would retain priority rights over infrastructure projects and a veto on selling resources to third parties.

Although the deal does not include provisions granting the US ownership over Ukraine’s nuclear energy infrastructure—a controversial idea floated last week by Trump—Ukrainian officials remain wary that nuclear assets could still be on the table in future negotiations.

A source familiar with the matter said the nuclear issue had been raised in previous discussions but was deliberately excluded from this iteration of the proposal.

Related:

You could close this page. Or you could join our community and help us produce more materials like this.  We keep our reporting open and accessible to everyone because we believe in the power of free information. This is why our small, cost-effective team depends on the support of readers like you to bring deliver timely news, quality analysis, and on-the-ground reports about Russia's war against Ukraine and Ukraine's struggle to build a democratic society. A little bit goes a long way: for as little as the cost of one cup of coffee a month, you can help build bridges between Ukraine and the rest of the world, plus become a co-creator and vote for topics we should cover next. Become a patron or see other ways to support. Become a Patron!

To suggest a correction or clarification, write to us here

You can also highlight the text and press Ctrl + Enter

Please leave your suggestions or corrections here



    Euromaidan Press

    We are an independent media outlet that relies solely on advertising revenue to sustain itself. We do not endorse or promote any products or services for financial gain. Therefore, we kindly ask for your support by disabling your ad blocker. Your assistance helps us continue providing quality content. Thank you!

    Related Posts