Fantasy And Exploitation: The US-Ukraine Minerals Deal
The agreement between Washington and Kyiv to create an investment fund to search for rare earth minerals has been seen as something of a turn by the Trump administration. From hectoring and mocking the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky before the cameras on his visit to the US capital two months ago, President Donald Trump had apparently softened. It was easy to forget that the minerals deal was already on the negotiating table and would have been reached but for Zelensky's fateful and ill-tempered ambush. Dreams of accessing Ukrainian reserves of such elements as graphite, titanium and lithium were never going to dissipate.
Details remain somewhat sketchy, but the agreement supposedly sets out a sharing of revenues in a manner satisfactory to the parties while floating, if only tentatively, the prospect of renewed military assistance. That assistance, however, would count as US investment in the fund. According to the White House, the US Treasury Department and US International Development Finance Corporation will work with Kyiv 'to finalize governance and advance this important partnership', one that ensures the US 'an economic stake in securing a free, peaceful, and sovereign future for Ukraine.'
In its current form, the agreement supposedly leaves it to Ukraine to determine what to extract in terms of the minerals and where this extraction is to take place. A statement from the US Treasury Department also declared that, 'No state or person who financed or supplied the Russian war machine will be allowed to benefit from the reconstruction of Ukraine.'
Ukraine's Minister of Economy, Yulia Svyrydenko, stated that the subsoil remained within the domain of Kyiv's ownership, while the fund would be 'structured' on an equal basis 'jointly managed by Ukraine and the United States' and financed by 'new licenses in the field of critical materials, oil and gas – generated after the Fund is created'. Neither party would 'hold a dominant vote – a reflection of equal partnership between our two nations.'
The minister also revealed that privatisation processes and managing state-owned companies would not be altered by the arrangements. 'Companies such as Ukrnafta and Energoatom will stay in state ownership.' There would also be no question of debt obligations owed by Kyiv to Washington.
That this remains a 'joint' venture is always bound to raise some suspicions, and nothing can conceal the predatory nature of an arrangement that permits US corporations and firms access to the critical resources of another country. For his part, Trump fantasised in a phone call to a town hall on the NewsNation network that the latest venture would yield 'much more in theory than the $350 billion' worth of aid he insists the Biden administration furnished Kyiv with.
Svyrydenko chose to see the Reconstruction Investment Fund as one that would 'attract global investment into our country' while still maintaining Ukrainian autonomy. Representative Gregory Meeks, the ranking Democrat on the House of Foreign Affairs Committee, thought otherwise, calling it 'Donald Trump's extortion of Ukraine deal'. Instead of focusing on the large, rather belligerent fly in the ointment – Russian President Vladimir Putin – the US president had 'demonstrated nothing but weakness' towards Moscow.
The war mongering wing of the Democrats were also in full throated voice. To make such arrangements in the absence of assured military support to Kyiv made the measure vacuous. 'Right now,' Democratic Senator Chris Murphy said on MSNBC television, 'all indications are that Donald Trump's policy is to hand Ukraine to Vladimir Putin, and in that case, this agreement isn't worth the paper that it's written on.'
On a certain level, Murphy has a point. Trump's firmness in holding to the bargain is often capricious. In September 2017, he reached an agreement with the then Afghan president Ashraf Ghani to permit US companies to develop Afghanistan's rare earth minerals. Having spent 16 years in Afghanistan up to that point, ways of recouping some of the costs of Washington's involvement were being considered. It was agreed, went a White House statement sounding all too familiar, 'that such initiatives would help American companies develop minerals critical to national security while growing Afghanistan's economy and creating new jobs in both countries, therefore defraying some of the costs of United States assistance as Afghans become more reliant.'
Ghani's precarious puppet regime was ultimately sidelined in favour of direct negotiations with the Taliban that eventually culminated in their return to power, leaving the way open for US withdrawal and a termination of any grand plans for mineral extraction.
A coterie of foreign policy analysts abounded with glowing statements at this supposedly impressive feat of Ukrainian diplomacy. Shelby Magid, deputy director of the Atlantic Council think tank's Eurasia Centre, thought it put Kyiv 'in their strongest position yet with Washington since Trump took office'. Ukraine had withstood 'tremendous pressure' to accept poorer proposals, showing 'that it is not just a junior partner that has to roll over and accept a bad deal'.
Time and logistics remain significant obstacles to the realisation of the agreement. As Ukraine's former minister of economic development and current head of Kyiv school of economics Tymofiy Mylovanov told the BBC, 'These resources aren't in a port or warehouse; they must be developed.' Svyrydenko had to also ruefully concede that vast resources of mineral deposits existed in territory occupied by Russian forces. There are also issues with unexploded mines. Any challenge to the global rare earth elements (REEs) market, currently dominated by China (60% share of production of raw materials; 85% share of global processing output; and 90% manufacturing share of rare earth magnets), will be long in coming.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
27 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
US moves B-2 bombers as Trump weighs Iran options
The United States is reportedly moving B-2 bombers to the Pacific island of Guam. File photo: Getty The United States is moving B-2 bombers to the Pacific island of Guam, two officials told Reuters on Saturday (local time), as President Donald Trump weighs whether the US should take part in Israel's strikes against Iran. It was unclear whether the bomber deployment is tied to Middle East tensions. The B-2 can be equipped to carry America's 30,000-pound (13,600kg) GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, designed to destroy targets deep underground. That is the weapon that experts say could be used to strike Iran's nuclear program, including Fordow. The officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, declined to disclose any further details. One official said no forward orders had been given yet to move the bombers beyond Guam. They did not say how many B-2 bombers are being moved. The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Experts and officials are closely watching to see whether the B-2 bombers will move forward to a US-British military base on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia. Experts say that Diego Garcia is in an ideal position to operate in the Middle East. The United States had B-2 bombers on Diego Garcia up until last month, when they were replaced with B-52 bombers. Israel said on Saturday it had killed a veteran Iranian commander during attacks by both sides in the more than week-long air war, while Tehran said it would not negotiate over its nuclear program while under threat. Israel says Iran was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, while Iran says its atomic program is only for peaceful purposes. Trump has said he would take up to two weeks to decide whether the United States should enter the conflict on Israel's side, enough time "to see whether or not people come to their senses," he said. Reuters was first to report this week the movement of a large number of tanker aircraft to Europe and other military assets to the Middle East, including the deployment of more fighter jets. An aircraft carrier in the Indo-Pacific is also heading to the Middle East.
1News
11 hours ago
- 1News
Columbia protester Mahmoud Khalil freed from immigration detention
Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil was released today from federal immigration detention, freed after 104 days by a judge's ruling after becoming a symbol of US President Donald Trump 's clampdown on campus protests. The former Columbia University graduate student left a federal facility in Louisiana today. He is expected to head to New York to reunite with his US citizen wife and infant son, born while Khalil was detained. 'Justice prevailed, but it's very long overdue,' he said outside the facility in a remote part of Louisiana. 'This shouldn't have taken three months.' The Trump administration is seeking to deport Khalil over his role in pro-Palestinian protests. He was detained on March 8 at his apartment building in Manhattan. Khalil was released after US District Judge Michael Farbiarz said it would be 'highly, highly unusual' for the government to continue detaining a legal US resident who was unlikely to flee and hadn't been accused of any violence. ADVERTISEMENT 'Petitioner is not a flight risk, and the evidence presented is that he is not a danger to the community,' he said. 'Period, full stop.' During an hourlong hearing conducted by phone, the New Jersey-based judge said the government had 'clearly not met' the standards for detention. The government filed notice Friday evening that it's appealing Khalil's release. Khalil was the first person arrested under Trump's crackdown on students who joined campus protests against Israel's devastating war in Gaza. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said Khalil must be expelled from the country because his continued presence could harm American foreign policy. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. (Source: Associated Press) The Trump administration has argued that noncitizens who participate in such demonstrations should be deported as it considers their views antisemitic. Protesters and civil rights groups say the administration is conflating antisemitism with criticism of Israel in order to silence dissent. Farbiarz has ruled that the government can't deport Khalil on the basis of its claims that his presence could undermine foreign policy. But the judge gave the administration leeway to continue pursuing a potential deportation based on allegations that he lied on his green card application, an accusation Khalil disputes. ADVERTISEMENT The international affairs graduate student isn't accused of breaking any laws during the protests at Columbia. He served as a negotiator and spokesperson for student activists and wasn't among the demonstrators arrested, but his prominence in news coverage and willingness to speak publicly made him a target of critics. The judge agreed today with Khalil's lawyers that the protester was being prevented from exercising his free speech and due process rights despite no obvious reason for his continued detention. The judge noted that Khalil is now clearly a public figure. Khalil said today that no one should be detained for protesting Israel's war in Gaza. He said his time in the Jena, Louisiana, detention facility had shown him 'a different reality about this country that supposedly champions human rights and liberty and justice'. 'Whether you are a US citizen, an immigrant or just a person on this land doesn't mean that you are less of a human,' he said, adding that 'justice will prevail, no matter what this administration may try to portray' about immigrants. The La Salle Detention Facility is seen in Jena, Louisiana. (Source: Associated Press) Khalil had to surrender his passport and can't travel internationally, but he will get his green card back and be given official documents permitting limited travel within the country, including New York and Michigan to visit family, New Jersey and Louisiana for court appearances and Washington to lobby Congress. In a statement after the judge's ruling, Khalil's wife, Dr Noor Abdalla, said she can finally 'breathe a sigh of relief' after her husband's three months in detention. 'We know this ruling does not begin to address the injustices the Trump administration has brought upon our family, and so many others,' she said. 'But today we are celebrating Mahmoud coming back to New York to be reunited with our little family.' The judge's decision comes after several other scholars targeted for their activism have been released from custody, including another former Palestinian student at Columbia, Mohsen Mahdawi; a Tufts University student, Rumeysa Ozturk; and a Georgetown University scholar, Badar Khan Suri.
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
'She's wrong': Trump contradicts spy boss on Iran nuclear programme
US President Donald Trump said on Friday (local time) that his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was wrong in suggesting there was no evidence Iran is building a nuclear weapon. Trump contested intelligence assessments relayed earlier this year by his spy chief that Tehran was not building a nuclear weapon when he spoke with reporters at an airport in Morristown, New Jersey. "She's wrong," Trump said. In March, Gabbard testified to Congress that the US intelligence community continued to believe that Tehran was not building a nuclear weapon. "The (intelligence community) continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon," she said. On Friday, Gabbard said in a post on the social media platform X that: "America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly. President Trump has been clear that can't happen, and I agree." She said the media had taken her March testimony "out of context" and was trying to "manufacture division." The White House has said Trump will weigh involvement in the Iran-Israel conflict over the next two weeks. On Tuesday, Trump made similar comments to reporters about Gabbard's assessment. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has justified a week of airstrikes on Iranian nuclear and military targets by saying Tehran was on the verge of having a warhead. Iran denies developing nuclear weapons, saying its uranium enrichment programme is only for peaceful purposes. In March, Gabbard described Iran's enriched uranium stockpile as unprecedented for a state without such weapons and said the government was watching the situation closely. She also said that Iran had started discussing nuclear weapons in public, "emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran's decision-making apparatus." A source with access to US intelligence reports told Reuters that the assessment presented by Gabbard has not changed. They said US spy services also judged that it would take up to three years for Iran to build a warhead with which it could hit a target of its choice. Some experts, however, believe it could take Iran a much shorter time to build and deliver an untested crude nuclear device, although there would be no guarantee it would work. Trump has frequently disavowed the findings of US intelligence agencies, which he and his supporters have charged - without providing proof - are part of a "deep state" cabal of US officials opposed to his presidency. Gabbard, a fierce Trump loyalist, has been among the president's backers who have aired such allegations. The Republican president repeatedly clashed with US spy agencies during his first term, including over an assessment that Moscow worked to sway the 2016 presidential vote in his favour and his acceptance of Russian President Vladimir Putin's denials.
