Trump wants to do a deal for Ukraine’s critical minerals. Will Zelensky give him what he wants – or will Putin?
- Written by: Alexander Korolev, Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, UNSW Sydney
The United States and Russia agreed to work on a plan to end the war in Ukraine at high-level talks in Saudi Arabia this week. Ukrainian and European representatives were pointedly not invited to take part.
US President Donald Trump seemingly entered[1] into these negotiations prepared to capitulate on two main points that Russian President Vladimir Putin has been seeking. Russia is opposed to Ukraine joining NATO and wants to retain Ukrainian territory captured since its invasion of Crimea in 2014.
Such a dramatic shift in Washington’s approach to Ukraine’s sovereignty and security has undermined Western-Ukrainian unity on the acceptable parameters around ending the war.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Ukraine won’t accept[2] a deal negotiated without them. Former US National Security Adviser John Bolton said[3] Trump “effectively surrendered” to Putin.
European leaders, too, are concerned[4] after they were excluded from the Saudi talks. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said[5]:
This does not mean that peace can be dictated and that Ukraine must accept what is presented to it.
Many believe Trump’s moves to splinter this trans-Atlantic front against Russia send a signal that Washington is abandoning[6] its commitment to European security.
However, there’s another important factor at play in Trump’s actions: the intensifying global competition over critical minerals. Trump wants to secure access to Ukraine’s vast reserves of these minerals, even if it means breaking with the US’ traditional allies in the European Union.
Why are Ukraine’s minerals so valuable
According to some reports, Ukraine has deposits[7] of 22 of the 34 minerals identified as critical by the EU. These include:
- lithium and cobalt, used in rechargeable battery production
- scandium, used for aerospace industry components
- tantalum, used for electronic equipment
- titanium, used in the aerospace, medical, automotive and marine industries
- nickel ore, manganese, beryllium, hafnium, magnesium, zirconium and others, used in the aerospace, defence and nuclear industries.
China currently dominates the world’s supply chains of these minerals – it is the largest source of US imports of 26 of the 50 minerals[8] classified as critical by the United States Geological Survey.
This is the reason behind Trump’s suggestion[9] last week that the US be granted 50% of Ukraine’s rare earth minerals as reimbursement for the billions of dollars in weapons and support it has provided to Kyiv since the war began.
The problem, however, is that at least 40% of Ukraine’s minerals[10] are currently under Russian occupation in the eastern Donetsk and Luhansk regions of the country. (Other sources put this figure[11] as high as 70%.)
Concerned about Ukraine’s territorial integrity, Zelensky has publicly rejected[12] the US demand for half of Ukraine’s mineral resources, because the proposal does not include security guarantees. It only vaguely referred to payment for future aid, according to reports[13].
In response, the White House National Security Council spokesperson Brian Hughes said[14]:
President Zelensky is being short-sighted about the excellent opportunity the Trump administration has presented the Ukraine.
What kind of deal could be made?
A big question ahead of any peace negotiations over Ukraine is whether commercially-minded Trump would be willing to accept a counter-proposal from Putin.
Since Russia currently controls large swathes of mineral-rich eastern Ukraine, Putin may be willing to offer Trump an exclusive critical minerals deal in exchange for the US formally committing to not restoring Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders and not letting the country into NATO.
Ukraine, meanwhile, may be angling for its own minerals deal with European countries in exchange for their continued support. Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal expressed[15] his country’s willingness to set up joint ventures with the EU in this area:
We could replace Russian titanium on the European market, contributing to the development of both the EU’s civilian industry and advanced military technologies.
He also said the project of rebuilding Ukraine could be a boon for the entire bloc.
The European Commission has recommended[16] a policy of encouraging Ukraine to export these materials to the EU. In response, authorities in Kyiv started working out the necessary regulatory and legal measures to integrate Ukraine into the EU’s resource strategy.
With so many powers keen to access its minerals, Ukraine is in an extremely complex and hard-to-navigate geopolitical situation.
Zelensky’s bet on the EU, instead of the US, might be right, given the growing rift between Brussels and Washington over Ukraine’s future. But as Thucydides, the ancient Greek historian, once said[17], the odds may be stacked against it:
Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
References
- ^ entered (www.defense.gov)
- ^ won’t accept (www.bbc.com)
- ^ said (www.youtube.com)
- ^ concerned (www.rferl.org)
- ^ said (apnews.com)
- ^ abandoning (theconversation.com)
- ^ deposits (www.theguardian.com)
- ^ 26 of the 50 minerals (www.csis.org)
- ^ suggestion (www.nbcnews.com)
- ^ 40% of Ukraine’s minerals (www.reuters.com)
- ^ put this figure (www.aljazeera.com)
- ^ publicly rejected (www.nytimes.com)
- ^ according to reports (apnews.com)
- ^ said (apnews.com)
- ^ expressed (www.politico.eu)
- ^ recommended (www.dw.com)
- ^ once said (www.goodreads.com)
Authors: Alexander Korolev, Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, UNSW Sydney
