The proposed US-Ukraine minerals deal
When "America First" becomes win-win cooperation
A minerals deal had been signed by U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and Ukrainian First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Economy Yuliia Svyrydenko, prior to the Oval Office clash among President Donald Trump, Vice-President J.D. Vance, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, which resulted in the cancelation of the ceremony of signing by the presidents of the two countries. The now-deferred minerals deal is an excellent example of a mutually beneficial economic arrangement between two countries. As such, it demonstrates the potential of a new paradigm of win-win cooperation for overcoming the current sustained structural crisis of the world-system.
Ukraine has significant deposits of so-called critical elements and minerals, including lithium (the key component in batteries), graphite (used to make batteries for electric vehicles), and titanium (used in the construction of airplanes and power stations). Ukraine also has significant deposits of coal, gas, oil, and uranium. Its natural resource deposits are worth billions of dollars.
Some of these natural resources are in the Russian-occupied territory, where Russia recognizes Russian-speaking independent republics. However, Russian President Vladimir Putin has suggested the possibility that the USA could have access to natural resources in regions formerly of Ukraine but now recognized by Russia as part of the Russian Federation, inasmuch as Russia already has resources of this kind that are being processed and marketed. Significant coal, natural gas, and oil reserves are located in said territory, waiting for investments dedicated to their development.
As reported by Inshara Ali and Dan De Luce for NBC News, Ukraine also possesses “rare earths,” which are fairly abundant throughout the world, but they require elaborate processing and refinement, an economic sector that China now dominates. They are in high demand because of their importance for defense (including lasers, missiles and tanks) and technology (computers, televisions, smartphones, and clean energy technologies). The quantity and value of Ukraine’s rare earth elements are not clear, because of the lack of up-to-date geological surveys (most of the mineral maps in Ukraine date to the era of the Soviet Union); and because information has been classified by the Ukrainian government.
The Bilateral Agreement signed by Bessent and Svyrydenko commits the two governments to the development of a durable partnership, in accordance with the interest of the United States to invest in Ukrainian natural resources and the interest of both governments in lasting peace and in a sovereign and secure Ukraine. The agreement announces the intention of the parties to establish a Reconstruction Investment Fund which will be jointly owned and managed by the two governments, specifically the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Ukrainian ministries of Finance and Economy. The Fund will earn income from the future monetarization of Ukrainian government-owned natural resource assets, including deposits of minerals, hydrocarbons, oil, natural gas, and relevant infrastructure (excluding currently existing revenues from such natural resource assets that already are included in the Ukrainian state budget). The government of Ukraine will contribute to the Fund an amount equal to 50% of income earned from the future monetization of its natural resource assets. The Agreement asserts that “Contributions to the Fund will be reinvested in Ukraine to promote the safety, security, and prosperity of Ukraine.” And it states that “The United States will maintain a long-term financial commitment to the development of a stable and economically prosperous Ukraine.” The Fund will attract investment in projects in Ukraine that are designed to increase the development, processing, and monetarization of the natural resource assets of Ukraine, in order to “ensure the sufficient supply of capital for the reconstruction of Ukraine.”
The agreement was especially championed by U.S. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who viewed it as a way to create a new, mutually beneficial relation between the two countries. As expressed by Jennifer Jacobs of CBS News, the agreement provides Ukraine with “a huge opportunity to have the U.S. as a business partner, with U.S. companies working on helping Ukraine monetize their mineral resources, such as gas and oil, aluminum and tritium and others.”
It seems to me that the agreement is mutually beneficial. It appears to authorize the U.S. Department of the Treasury to promote and incentivize U.S. corporations to invest in the processing and marketing of Ukrainian natural resources. These corporations would be granted rights to Ukrainian natural resources, thus providing access to new sources of profits. Payments in one form or another would go to the Ukrainian state, as the owner of the natural resources. The Ukrainian state would contribute 50% of its earnings to the Fund managed jointly by the U.S. and Ukrainian governments, which could use the funds for further investment in the processing and marketing of Ukrainian natural resources and for reimbursement of the U.S. government for costs in supporting the Ukrainian war against Russia.
In the heyday of American imperialism, American companies generally were given access to natural and human resources in exchange for a low tariff, and the nation who owned the natural resources did not have a seat at the table of management. In general, U.S.-owned production in the nations of the South contributed more to the economic development of the USA than to the country that owned the natural resources. In contrast, in the current stage of transition to a post-imperialist world-system, many countries have developed joint ventures with foreign capital, providing States with an equal voice with respect to the use of the income generated. The agreement that the Trump administration had negotiated with Ukraine is in harmony with the post-imperialist structures of our time, which are being forged by a worldwide anti-imperialist movement from the Global East and South.
The Bilateral Agreement was seen by the Trump administration as the first step toward peace. It was to be followed by a Peace treaty with Russia as well as by commitment to Ukrainian security from some governments of Western Europe.
Trump believes that the security of Ukraine is the responsibility of Europe. At the same time, Trump and his advisers view the Bilateral Agreement as providing an economic security guarantee, in that it would establish a shared investment structure that would bind the USA and Ukraine for a generation. U.S. investments in Ukraine and the presence of U.S. corporations and workers on Ukrainian soil would provide a degree of security for Ukraine, especially in the context of a period of cooperation between the USA and Russia. The Agreement would create in effect an American concession, which would function as a deterrent against any possible Russian aggression in the future. The declarations coming from Moscow already imply that it would be the kind of Western presence in Ukraine that Russia would find acceptable, fundamentally different from the presence of military troops of NATO countries in Ukraine, which Putin has repeatedly rejected.
The heated exchange in the Oval Office occurred because Zelensky was pushing for direct defense commitments from the USA, which is not in the Trump administration’s plan. Zelensky suggested that if a security plan were not in place to accompany the economic agreement, the USA would soon feel threatened by Russia. Trump was offended by the fact that Zelensky, who really did not have cards to play, instead of accepting with appreciation the minerals deal that Vance characterized as saving Ukraine as a country, would lecture the U.S. President on how to manage U.S. relations with Russia. As Tyler Pager and Maggie Haberman of The New York Times write, “Mr. Trump, Mr. Vance and their advisers have long disliked Mr. Zelensky, complaining that he just wants the United States to provide more money and resources for a war that has no end in sight.”
From the U.S. point of view, the USA has given Ukraine support in the form of millions of dollars in military equipment, and the benefits of said support to the USA are unclear. Trump believes that the US government, under Biden, has given Ukraine far more military support than it should have.
Trump feels that many governments are taking advantage of the United States. I would put this a little differently. I would say that many U.S. trading partners have taken advantage of the indifference of the U.S. political establishment to its duty to advance the productivity of the American national economy, revealing this indifference by accepting agreements and economic exchanges that have led to balance of payments deficits and to excessive state budget deficits. The duty of the political establishment to develop the national economy is not only a duty to U.S. citizens, but also to humanity, because the technological and productive advances of the most advanced nations contribute to the technological advancement and wellbeing of humanity, if the benefits attained are widely shared through cooperative arrangements.
According to Victor Davis Hanson, senior contributor to The Daily Signal, the war in Ukraine has resulted in 1.5 million dead, wounded, missing, or captured on both sides. It is the largest casualty rate in Europe since the Battle of Stalingrad of 1942-1943. The USA, with a $37 trillion national debt, is no longer able to subsidize the war. However, the United States remains the most significant military and financial backer of Ukraine in the war against Russia, in spite of its geographical distance from the zone of conflict.
Meanwhile, Hanson maintains, Europe has not contributed enough to the defense of Ukraine and to the security of Europe. Europe previously promised to invest 2% of GDP on defense, but it has not done so. Ukraine remains dependent on the USA for ammunition, howitzers, armored vehicles, and air-defense missiles, even though Ukraine has increased its arms production, including the manufacturing of exploding drones.
If the United States were to not sign the minerals deal and were to cease military support of Ukraine (the USA has just temporarily suspended military aid to Ukraine), the European governments would not be able to take up the slack immediately, inasmuch as Europe has been spending no more than an average of 1.6% of its GDP on defense. Europe has in recent years adopted the New Cold War rhetoric against Russia and has expanded NATO to the East, ignoring Russia’s objections, but it depended on the United States to provide military support in Ukraine, when the expansionism of NATO and repression of the Russian-speaking population by the Ukrainian government provoked the Russian military operation in Ukraine. If Ukraine decides to fight on without U.S. support, it won’t be able to count on much support from Europe in the form of military equipment and supplies.
Trump and his advisors see the minerals deal and a peace agreement with Russia as a way out that benefits all involved. Realistically, a negotiated peace settlement would have to include recognition of the Russian-speaking regions of Donbas and Crimea as independent republics of the Russian Federation. Such an agreement, unavoidable when the facts on the ground are considered, would not mean new territories obtained by Russia, but her reincorporation of old territories.
Trump said he trusts Putin to uphold a ceasefire agreement. Indeed, Russia would have no interest in launching another military operation in Ukraine, if Ukraine were to accept the independence of the Russian-speaking republics on the border with Russia, and if NATO were to cease its plan of encirclement of the Russian frontier. It would be in the interests of the Western European countries to stop NATO expansionism and encirclement of Russia and to restore the significant trading relations they had with Russia before the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, so that all would have an economic interest in peace.
In the confrontational meeting among Trump, Vance, and Zelensky and the subsequent public discussion, the issue of who started the war emerged. The prevailing view in the United States is that Russia invaded Ukraine, in accordance with its historic imperialist and expansionist tendencies. This view is held by the great majority of public officials of the Democratic Party as well as the legacy media. It is held by some public officials in the Republican Party, but the rhetoric is softened by commitment to avoid unwinnable conflicts on the other side of the world. Trump, as he moves toward cooperation with Russia, has moved away from the Cold War rhetoric, and in some of his declarations, he has refuted it.
But there is an entirely different view of the matter, formulated from the Global East and South and supported by critical commentaries of Western specialists. I have discussed this issue in previous commentaries. (See, for example, “Trump seeks peace in Ukraine: A new paradigm of win-win cooperation is announced,” February 21, 2025). I find it hard to ignore the view from the Global East and South, taking into account the eastern expansionism of NATO, proceeding for years in spite of the diplomatic objections of Russia; the involvement of the West in supporting the 2014 “color revolution” against the democratically elected pro-Russian president of Ukraine, leading to his overthrow; and the subsequent suppression of the Russian language by the government of Ukraine, provoking declarations in Russian-speaking provinces of autonomous regions within Ukraine, and followed by sustained violence by the government of Ukraine and its contracted mercenaries against the Russian-speaking populations of the declared autonomous regions, resulting in an estimated 14,000 deaths. The Russian military operation, initiated in 2022, was not unprovoked; and it was undertaken only after years of sustained negotiations, seeking to protect the right of the Russian-speaking populations to form autonomous regions. From the outset, the Russian military operation was not conceived as an invasion with the objective of regime change in Kiev, but as a military operation seeking the protection of the Russian-speaking regions that had declared for autonomy within Ukraine. With the success of the Russian military operation, three Russian-speaking provinces are now recognized by Russia as independent people’s republics in the Russian Federation.
French President Emmanuel Macron and the expected new Chancellor of Germany Friedrich Merz expressed their strong support for Ukraine, stating that Russia has been the aggressor, and that Ukraine has been a victim of Russian aggression. Several European leaders have said that their governments would increase defense spending and maintain military support for Ukraine, hoping that this would keep the United States on board in providing military aid to Ukraine. Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain spoke of the need to form “a coalition of the willing” to defend Ukraine and to deploy troops in Ukraine in the event of a cease-fire agreement between Ukraine and Russia. However, as noted above, the possibilities for Europe to provide necessary military support in the short term are limited.
The Trump plan for peace and economic cooperation would be good for Ukraine. It would enable peace, ending a costly war that Ukraine has little prospects for winning. And it would enable the reconstruction and economic development of Ukraine, with U.S. partnership, which would be accepted by Russia.
The Trump plan is good for the USA. It would establish peace, eliminating the need for continuous military aid to Ukraine, which has exacerbated the state budget deficit. It would provide partial compensation for military expenditures of the last three years. It would enable new possibilities for companies to exploit natural resources in Ukraine, in the context of a new Fund that recognizes the U.S. and Ukrainian governments as equal partners. It would provide benefits to U.S. corporations with respect to the natural resources of the “new” territories of the Russian Federation. It would bring the Western European nations on board in assuming responsibility for the defense of Europe.
The Trump plan is good for Russia. It would conclude the war successfully, with Russia attaining her goals of stopping NATO expansionism and protecting the Russian-speaking population in east Ukraine, now incorporated in the Russian Federation as independent republics. It would establish possibilities for renewed trade with the USA and Europe.
Europe would lose in the short term, because Europe would now be obligated to assume responsibility for the defense of Europe and the defense of Ukraine in the event of a new Russian military operation, which only would occur if NATO were to continue its expansionist encirclement of Russia or if there were to be new attacks on the newly independent Russian-speaking people’s republics. In the long term, Europe should emphasize promoting its security by restoring and expanding mutually beneficial trade between Eastern and Western Europe.
Final considerations: Cooperation or barbarism
Cooperation and mutually beneficial trade have been the call and demand of the worldwide anti-colonial movement since the 1950s. Unbeknownst to the legacy media and nearly all politicians and activists of all tendencies in the USA, cooperation and mutually beneficial trade have been during the first quarter of the twenty-first century the principal concepts of the anti-imperialist states of the world, led by China, Cuba, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, among others.
Seeking to avoid costly and unwinnable foreign policy entanglements, the Trump administration goes outside the box to implement the concept of win-win cooperation with respect to Russia and Ukraine. The Trump administration and the MAGA movement need to advance to the understanding that win-win cooperation must be the fundamental principal that guides all honorable nations in the current historic moment. It is the key to overcoming the sustained structural crisis of the world-system, which has been provoked by the fact that a world of competing imperialisms is no longer geographically, ecologically, or politically sustainable. For humanity today, the choice is clear: cooperation or barbarism.
A free subscription option is available, with capacity to read, send, and share all posts. A paid subscription ($5 per month or $40 per year) enables you to make comments and to support the costs of the column; paid subscribers also receive a free PDF copy of my book on Cuba and the world-system. Ten percent of income generated through subscriptions to the column is donated to the Cuban Society for Philosophical Investigations.