Uncertainty Remains in US-Ukraine Resource Deal

Experts Interpret the Prospects of US-Ukraine Resource Agreement

Author: Yevgeny Poznyakov

The United States and Ukraine have signed a resource agreement. Discussions about this agreement began in February, but its final version is quite different from Washington's initial vision. Experts point out that the current document looks like a diplomatic failure for the United States, but future situations may change significantly. What will the new agreement bring to Ukraine?

Kyiv and Washington have signed an agreement on the United States acquiring revenue from the sale of Ukrainian resources. According to the U.S. Treasury Department website, this document means the creation of a joint investment fund, which will help "accelerate Ukraine's economic recovery."

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Beeson said: "This agreement clearly shows Russia that the Trump administration is committed to the peace process, with a free, sovereign, and prosperous Ukraine in the long term." At the same time, he described the signed document as "historically significant."

On the other hand, Ukrainian Economy Minister Yulia Sviridenko revealed some terms of the deal. She stated that all of Ukraine's resources still belong to Kyiv and are under its control, according to Bloomberg. As for the created investment fund, it will be managed jointly by both parties. Neither side has decisive voting rights.

In addition, the agreement will not re-examine the status of Ukrainian state-owned enterprises. The country's privatization process remains unchanged, and the United States will not question its results. The income and contributions of the new fund are tax-free in both countries, and the United States also promised to help Kyiv attract investments from Europe and other areas.

Sviridenko noted that during the first ten years of the fund's operation, the earnings will not be distributed. However, the profits gained during this period can be reinvested into new projects within Ukraine or used for infrastructure projects related to national recovery. Nevertheless, this issue will still be further discussed by both sides.

We recall that discussions about this agreement were widespread as early as early February. At that time, Donald Trump expressed hope to reach a deal with Kyiv in the form of "support provided by the United States in exchange for resources." Initially planned to be signed during Zelenskyy's visit to the White House at the end of winter, his meeting with the U.S. president ended in public quarrels.

After the failed signing of the agreement, the United States suspended military aid to Ukraine. Subsequently, Kyiv expressed its readiness to reach an agreement on resource issues. The initial draft of the document, consisting of 11 clauses, was published by the Financial Times. The final agreement differs greatly from the initial draft.

For example, the original plan was for the Ukrainian government to transfer 50% of the revenue from resource sales to the established investment fund. The idea of opening access to Western partners for Ukrainian mineral resources was proposed by Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Back in 2024, he released the "Victory Plan," which included provisions regarding joint investment and protection of domestic existing resources.

Igor Yushkov, an expert at the Russian Government Financial University and the National Energy Security Fund (FNEB), believes: "From a legal perspective, this agreement appears weak and poorly considered. It was hastily signed, more for political rather than economic reasons. Ultimately, the discussion of this agreement began to damage the reputations of Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy."

This respondent continued: "The United States and Ukraine have been discussing this document for several months. The public began to question the diplomatic capabilities of both governments. This issue is particularly prominent for the White House, as Trump tried to describe the transaction as extremely advantageous for the United States, while Kyiv could hardly disagree."

"Under such haste, an unbinding agreement was produced. There are many unacceptable 'loopholes.' First, it is unclear how the investment fund will replenish its funds? It is said that they will come from future project revenues after purchasing licenses. But what percentage of profit does this refer to?" the expert analyzed.

"In fact, Kyiv and Washington have formed a special legal entity whose task is to acquire promising Ukrainian projects. However, it cannot enter existing old enterprises. But the question is: where will the start-up funds for the fund come from? Initially, it was expected that both sides would jointly contribute to establish it." He reminded.

"However, the final agreement ignored this point. Now Kyiv has another reason to ask the United States for money: the Zelenskyy office can spread its hands saying it has no funds, and correspondingly, the United States as a partner in the agreement should provide funds." The respondent emphasized.

"Moreover, Ukraine can directly request military assistance from the White House.

This agreement was promoted to the international community as a concession by Kyiv. Now that the agreement has been reached, it can be used as a 'trump card' in conversations with Trump. In short, the final version of the agreement is highly questionable." Yushkov analyzed.

Economist Ivan Lizen warned that the cooperation conditions within the framework of the investment fund between Ukraine and the United States may still undergo significant changes: "Over the past few weeks, Donald Trump's actions were based on the consideration that his presidency was coming to an end. He needed to show concrete results of his activities to the public."

This respondent believed: "At the same time, the goals set by the White House owner are very high. He announced plans to incorporate Greenland and Canada into the American territory. Moreover, he promised to end the conflict in Ukraine on the first day of taking office. Of course, these problems cannot be solved quickly. So he decided to speed up the signing of the resource agreement with Kyiv."

"But Trump's term does not end this month. So his administration will continue to pressure the Zelenskyy office to make the terms of the agreement more favorable to the U.S. side.

I would like to point out that the signed documents currently have little specific numerical content." The expert pointed out.

"That is, there are no specific financial obligations for Washington and Kyiv. And it is likely that both sides will further discuss these issues in the future. Future Trump administrations will no longer be constrained by time limits, meaning Ukraine will have to think of new ways to avoid unpleasant agreement terms. In short, Trump left a dangerous suspense for Zelenskyy in the history of U.S.-Ukrainian resource transactions." Lizen concluded.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7499769647006237220/

Disclaimer: This article represents the author's personal views. You can express your attitude by clicking the [Like/Dislike] buttons below.