The News
Washington and Kyiv agreed a minerals deal seen as vital for Ukraine to secure US military backing, but which fell short of both sides’ main demands.
The draft text saw the US reportedly drop its call for natural-resources rights, but also included no security guarantees for Kyiv.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is due to visit Washington on Friday to sign the deal and discuss peace negotiations, capping a head-spinning week in which Trump called him a dictator, blamed him for Russia’s invasion, and began negotiating with Moscow without involving Ukraine.
Trump’s supporters said the minerals agreement was characteristic of his style — make outlandish demands before compromising — but the deal’s implications are profound: Without US aid, Ukraine can keep fighting only until this summer, The Wall Street Journal warned.
The apparent breakthrough came after Vladimir Putin earlier on Tuesday said that Russia could work with the US to exploit critical mineral deposits, including in areas of Ukraine currently occupied by Moscow.
SIGNALS
New deal drops most onerous terms, but no security guarantees included
The terms of the agreement don’t seem to include some of the most onerous asks of the Trump administration, such as giving Washington the right to $500 billion in Ukraine’s natural resources revenue to finance a US-controlled reconstruction fund. But the deal also doesn’t include any references to American security guarantees, something Kyiv had strived for. Ukraine’s deputy foreign minister said it was ”part of a bigger picture.” Washington’s initial offer shocked many Ukrainian and European officials, with one economist calling it an “extraordinary act of extortion.”
Moscow is trying to lure US business back, but companies are wary
The Kremlin wants Donald Trump to think there is money to be made from thawed ties, and Russian leader Vladimir Putin is “working hard to appeal to Mr Trump’s interest in profits and dealmaking,” The New York Times wrote. But foreign companies that exited Russia will be wary of returning, a Ukraine expert argued for the Atlantic Council: They’ll have to weigh potential profits against other risks that could end up hurting shareholders, as well as any reputational damage. Companies that can set up and dismantle operations quickly, like American shale, might be more tempted, a researcher at the Baker Institute told Semafor, but “[y]ou’d have to be a pretty cavalier player to contemplate returning to Russia under Putin,” he said.