The United States has increased Ukraine's obligations under the fossil treaty. What does this mean?

Negotiations on cooperation in the field of rare earth metals between Ukraine and the United States reached an impasse at the end of February, when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was in Washington. Despite the incident at the White House, Washington continues to insist on signing an updated agreement on infrastructure and natural resources. Why the new conditions raise many questions is in the Izvestia article.

How will the signing of the document affect Ukraine

• In March 2025, the administration of US President Donald Trump proposed tougher terms of the deal. According to the new draft, Ukraine is obliged to compensate for all the assistance provided (more than $120 billion). Kiev should also allocate 50% of revenues from the exploitation of natural resources to a joint investment fund, while the United States will have significant control over the management of the fund. Such conditions can undermine Ukraine's sovereignty and lead to an outflow of profits abroad.

• Verkhovna Rada deputy Yaroslav Zheleznyak noted that the draft agreement proposed by the United States effectively transfers the management of all Ukrainian minerals, including oil and gas, under the control of American structures. At the same time, the document does not contain any security guarantees for Ukraine.

So much, but not enough: what are rare earth metals and what are they for?

In 2025, Russia began to actively develop the industry

• Dissatisfaction with this caused a real scandal in the Verkhovna Rada: deputies disrupted the meeting at which the draft agreement was discussed. However, Zelensky tried to soften the situation, stressing that he does not oppose the subsoil treaty as a whole and does not want the United States to stop supporting Ukraine. Meanwhile, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that the parties are already close to signing an agreement, and it can be approved in early April. However, it is not yet certain that the parties will be able to reach an agreement so quickly.

• The Financial Times newspaper, citing Ukrainian officials, also reported that Washington was demanding the transfer of a number of strategic facilities, including nuclear power plants, under its control. However, this part of the negotiations has not yet been reflected in the official text of the agreement. Nevertheless, Kiev fears that this issue may resurface in future rounds of negotiations. According to Financial Times sources, the Ukrainian side is already developing counter-proposals for American partners.

• Kiev's attempts to soften the new version of the agreement on minerals are unlikely to be successful, because the American side considers these conditions as fair compensation for previously provided assistance and does not show willingness to make significant concessions. At the same time, the personal characteristics of the new US president play a significant role. After the altercation with Zelensky in the White House, he is unlikely to soften his position, because this can lead to reputational risks.

What other consequences can the signing of the agreement lead to?

• The signing of the agreement will require major changes in Ukrainian legislation. However, this may negatively affect Kiev's prospects of joining the European Union. The document effectively gives the United States control over key investment projects in Ukraine, including the oil and gas industry and the extraction of critically important minerals. This may create contradictions with the EU requirements for candidate countries. In addition, the new agreement may provide for Kiev to compensate the United States in one form or another for military and economic assistance provided before the conflict began. Consequently, Ukraine will have fewer funds to satisfy its own national interests.

• However, it is not only the United States that is interested in Ukrainian natural resources. In particular, the French defense industry needs strategically important resources to ensure the production of weapons in the long term. French President Emmanuel Macron has instructed Defense Minister Sebastien Lecorne to handle these negotiations, noting Paris' high interest in Ukrainian resources. Thus, the interests of Paris and Washington may clash when discussing access to Kiev's minerals.

Why Ukraine and the United States seek a deal

• The internal political situation in Ukraine significantly complicates its negotiating capabilities. Zelensky's refusal to vote and the ban on negotiations with Russia make Kiev vulnerable. Now the Ukrainian authorities need an influential intermediary who will ensure the conclusion of a deal with Russia.

• Washington, in turn, seeks to reduce dependence on China for the supply of rare earth metals needed for high-tech industries. Currently, the United States is 100% dependent on Chinese supplies of 15 strategically important minerals and more than 50% for another 29 positions.

• The development of new deposits in the United States is fraught with great difficulties and can take decades, so access to Ukrainian resources has become one of the priorities for the White House.

What does it all mean?

• Despite the economic obligations, the new agreement does not provide for the provision of military guarantees to Ukraine from the United States. The deal is primarily focused on active American investments in Ukraine. In Washington, this is called "guarantees of economic security." This confirms the Trump team's position that the United States should not take responsibility for the security of other countries, either for Ukraine or for European states. Washington's priority is to receive the money given to Kiev with interest, not to protect its interests.

A complete failure: what awaits Ukraine after the scandal between Zelensky and Trump in the White House

The United States is considering ending all military assistance to Ukraine

• In general, the increase in US commitments under the minerals agreement with Ukraine reflects Washington's desire to strengthen its economic influence in the region. However, the proposed terms raise disputes and concerns about Ukraine's sovereignty and economic independence. ​ The potential transfer of a significant share of income from national resources to a joint fund may cause discontent among the population and lead to protests against the terms of the agreement.

• Given the tough stance of the United States, the lack of security guarantees in the agreement and the difficulties in renegotiating the terms, Kiev's attempts to soften the new version of the agreement on minerals are unlikely to succeed. Ukraine finds itself in a situation where its negotiating capabilities are limited and its influence on the final terms of the agreement is minimal.

When writing the material, Izvestia talked and took into account the opinions of:

• Viktor Mizin, a political scientist at the E.M. Primakov Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences;
• Professor Andrey Bystritsky of the Higher School of Economics.