After tense negotiations and rejections, the US and Ukraine signed the first part of the minerals deal in Washington on 30 April. It establishes the US-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund that “will invest in Ukraine and generate returns in Ukraine”. Ukraine’s Parliament will need to ratify the document. As it stands, the document is a framework, with detailed implementation provisions yet to be agreed and signed.
The arrangement is inherently transactional as it provides an economic incentive or “compensation” for the US to continue to “invest in Ukraine’s defence and reconstruction”. Nevertheless, Ukraine succeeded in negotiating a more balanced deal compared to earlier proposals from Washington . For example, the new version relates only to new US investments and assistance, with no Ukrainian obligations to repay past US assistance after Russia’s invasion, which was a big concern for Ukraine. Kyiv’s concerns about a potential conflict with its EU accession goals were addressed through EU accession safeguards. They ensure that, in case of contradiction, the mineral agreement will be revised to align with Ukraine’s EU commitments.
Ukraine and the US will jointly own and manage the investment fund on a 50/50 basis, with neither side holding a dominant vote. The resources will remain under Ukrainian ownership. Also on the positive side, a rather specific element of the agreement states that that the Fund will be financed by 50% of the revenues exclusively from newly issued licenses for the listed Ukrainian critical materials, oil and gas (57 positions in total, excluding infrastructure).
The document does not grant US companies the right of first refusal on mineral licenses (a further Ukrainian concern), but it does guarantee US companies access to auctions or negotiations for such resources “on terms no less favourable than those offered to other buyers”.
The deal does not provide security guarantees or direct US commitments vis-a-vis military aid, as Ukraine originally demanded . However, it leaves open the possibility for the new military aid, which will count as the US contribution to the Fund. The Trump administration has been reluctant to promise any new military aid to Ukraine. Given the high stakes and immense pressure, Ukraine could not risk losing US support, which remains irreplaceable in some critical areas, including air defence systems and access to intelligence.
Although framed as an economic partnership agreement, it has far broader implications. The agreement has been one of the elements of the US-led peace process; it increases President Trump’s leverage in peace negotiations and creates more pressure on Russia. For Ukraine, the agreement offers hope for a more positive attitude from Washington, preventing US withdrawal from the peace process. The benefits for Ukraine were immediate: the US approved its first $50 million military equipment sale to Ukraine during the Trump presidency.
The main concerns relate to the practical implementation of these provisions, as some important issues still need to be specified in the technical part of the deal. Ultimately, the deal’s effectiveness will depend on progress in peace talks with Russia and the security situation in Ukraine.
Svitlana Taran is a policy analyst in the Europe in the World Programme at the European Policy Centre.
The support the European Policy Center receives for its ongoing operations, or specifically for its publications, does not constitute an endorsement of their contents, which reflect the views of the authors only. Supporters and partners cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
