Trump envoy wraps Zelensky talks with rare earth deal close, but not done

US-Ukraine Rare Earth Minerals Deal Inches Forward but Faces Resistance

In a high-stakes diplomatic effort, the US and Ukraine were on the brink of finalizing a landmark agreement granting the US rights to rare earth minerals in Ukraine, valued at hundreds of billions of dollars. However, the deal remained unsigned as President Trump’s special envoy, retired Gen. Keith Kellogg, concluded his three-day visit to the war-torn country. The negotiations, pushed heavily by the White House, have sparked tension, with Ukrainian officials viewing the terms as a form of coercion. A spokesperson for President Volodymyr Zelensky’s office emphasized that any agreement must be “mutually beneficial,” signaling Ukraine’s reluctance to cave under pressure.

Despite the lack of a finalized deal, Trump expressed optimism, stating that the agreement would secure $400 to $500 billion for the US and keep American involvement in Ukraine. He erroneously claimed that the US had already invested $300 billion in the country, adding that the deal should have been signed by his predecessor, Joe Biden. Trump’s confidence contrasts sharply with the skepticism of Ukrainian officials, who are wary of the terms and the potential imbalance in benefits.

A Divided Perspective: Support and Skepticism in Ukraine

Gen. Kellogg’s visit highlighted the complexities of US-Ukraine relations. Unlike other administration officials, Kellogg openly praised Zelensky, calling him a “courageous leader” and expressing optimism about the discussions. His statements stood out in an administration where others, like Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, failed to secure a similar deal due to insufficient security guarantees for Ukraine. Experts like John Hardie of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies believe that cooperation on natural resources is beneficial in principle but stress the importance of mutual benefit.

However, not all Ukrainians are convinced. Some argue that Zelensky should stand firm against Trump’s pressure tactics, emphasizing that the US president’s approach resembles that of a businessman prioritizing investments over strategic partnerships. A Ukrainian soldier, Denis Yaroslavskyi, highlighted the importance of international business involvement in deterring Russian aggression, suggesting that economic ties could bolster Ukraine’s security. Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has proposed a joint venture with Ukraine, which some view as a potential win-win for both nations.

Historical Echoes and Fears of Exploitation

The current negotiations have evoked memories of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, in which Ukraine relinquished its nuclear arsenal in exchange for security guarantees from the US, UK, and Russia. The memorandum’s failure, particularly after Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and its ongoing war with Ukraine, has left many Ukrainians wary of deals with Western powers. Critics like political analyst Roman Motychak warn that pushing for a lopsided agreement could damage US-Ukraine relations for generations, comparing it to “marauding.”

Local businessman Volodymyr Pimienov echoed these sentiments, recalling the immense cost of Ukraine’s nuclear disarmament under the Budapest Memorandum. “We gave up everything for the sake of peace,” he said, “but those who made agreements did so in the wrong direction.” These historical grievances underscore Ukraine’s trepidation about signing deals that may not safeguard its interests or security.

Zelensky’s Political Dilemma and Public Opinion

Zelensky faces significant political pressure as he navigates the negotiations. His predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, urged him to set aside “emotions” and prioritize repairing relations with the US, Ukraine’s key strategic partner. Poroshenko, a potential rival in the next presidential election, warned that losing US support could severely weaken Ukraine’s position in the war against Russia. He advised Zelensky to adopt a more diplomatic approach, avoiding public spats with Trump.

However, not all Ukrainians agree. Motychak and others argue that Zelensky should resist American pressure, asserting that Trump’s tactics are neither fair nor sustainable. A Ukrainian policy expert currently serving in the military suggested that transparency could help build public support for the deal. “The sooner the White House reveals the terms of the agreement, the better,” they said, noting that fair terms could sway public opinion in favor of the deal.

Conclusion: A Fragile Balance of Power and Partnership

The US-Ukraine rare earth minerals deal represents a complex interplay of economic, political, and historical factors. While the US seeks to secure strategic resources and recoup investments, Ukraine is determined to protect its sovereignty and ensure mutual benefits. The negotiations have exposed deeper tensions, with Ukrainians divided on how to engage with Trump’s administration. As both sides continue to negotiate, transparency and fairness will be crucial in determining the deal’s success—and the future of the US-Ukraine partnership.

In the end, the agreement’s outcome will depend on whether it can address the concerns of both nations while avoiding the pitfalls of past deals, such as the Budapest Memorandum. For Ukraine, the stakes are high, as the country balances its need for international support with the imperative to safeguard its interests and security in the face of ongoing conflict with Russia.