Yves here. We’ve explained repeatedly that the Ukraine “raw earths” deal is based on extreme exaggeration of the mineral deposits that the Ukraine government owns (or to which it retained mineral rights) and therefore could offer to the US. Aside from the obvious problem that those “rare earth” reserves are disproportionately in Russian-controlled or Russian-claimed territory, the best of the rest is very likely to be in private hands. Think anyone is going to get very far were there attempts to seize them? Ukraine oligarchs have muscle and would sabotage any efforts (they are capable focusing minds even more by killing work crew. Equipment would have value on the black market).
This post usefully catalogues many of the obstacles to this “deal” producing meaningful returns.
That raises the question of why Trump has been so fixated on it, since his persistent efforts to get Zelensky to sign something goes beyond what would be necessary to make PR points (Ukraine owes us bigly, the Biden Administration was a patsy for providing so much support with no strings attached, I am a Big Man looking out for US economic interests). I keep falling back on the idea that this is yet another Trump dominance exercise. Having insisted Ukraine will sign a “rare earths deal,” he’s going to persist until he gets something signed.
By Andrew Topf, a journalist with over two decades of experience in newspapers, trade publications and as a mining reporter. Originally published at OilPrice
- The U.S. is eyeing Ukraine’s vast mineral wealth—including rare earths, lithium, and titanium—as a way to recoup war-related aid.
- Experts warn that Ukraine’s rare earth deposits are overstated, outdated, and largely inaccessible.
- Despite the risks and limited returns, a minerals-for-reconstruction deal appears to be moving forward.
The United States is pinning its hopes on reclaiming expenses incurred on Ukraine during its war with Russia by tapping Ukraine’s vast mineral potential including the development of rare earth element deposits.
The problem with this deal is two-fold: one, the deposits in question are mostly within Russian-occupied territory; and two, rare earths are difficult to find lumped together in economic quantities, and even harder to separate into rare earth oxides, that are used in everything from cell phones to electric vehicles to high-tech weaponry.
The Deal
First, the proposed deal. It outlines a plan to use future revenues from Ukraine’s rare earth and critical mineral reserves, as well as oil and gas.
According to Al Jazeera, a Reconstruction Investment Fund would be created, using revenues generated from Ukraine’s natural resources to reinvest in reconstruction following over three years of intense war.
Ukraine would contribute 50 percent of revenues from state-owned resources to the fund. It is unclear where the remaining half would come from and how much control the US would wield over the funds, says Al Jazeera, adding the US will support Ukraine’s efforts to secure lasting peace but offers no direct security guarantees.
How Much Aid Was Sent to Ukraine?
In that now-infamous meeting between Trump, Vice President Vance and Ukraine’s President Zelensky, Trump said the US has paid more than $350 billion in military aid/ support to Ukraine.
Zelensky disputed that figure — likely an unsubstantiated Trump guesstimate, which started at $500B — saying it was much lower.
The Kiel Institute for the World Economy, which has tracked military, financial and humanitarian aid to Ukraine since the war began, said the United States has donated $118 billion.
The US Department of Defense puts the number at $183 billion, which includes the cost of replenishing Ukraine’s defense stocks.
What Minerals Does Ukraine Have?
According to Ukraine’s Economy Ministry, the country holds deposits of 22 out of 34 minerals classified as critical by the European Union.
These critical minerals — whose reserves made up approximately 5 percent of the global supply as of 2022 — include precious and non-ferrous metals, ferroalloys and minerals such as titanium, zirconium, graphite and lithium.
Ukraine has an estimated 500,000 tonnes of lithium reserves, which are considered among Europe’s largest repositories of the battery metal.
As for the rare earths, according to The Independent, Ukraine has rare earth elements such as lanthanum and cerium, used in TVs and lighting; neodymium, used in wind turbines and EV batteries; and erbium and yttrium, whose applications range from nuclear power to lasers. EU-funded research also indicates Ukraine has reserves of high-priced scandium, but the data is classified.
These rare-earth resources are estimated to have a value of more than £12 trillion, and according to The Independent, Zelensky has been trying to develop them for years. He reportedly offered outside investors tax breaks and investment rights to help mine these minerals in 2021, but war broke out a year later.
More than 95 percent of industrially useful rare-earth metals are produced by China, creating supply chain and national security vulnerabilities in the US and elsewhere.
A recent graphic by Visual Capitalist says Ukraine claims to hold nearly $15 trillion worth of mineral resources, making it one of the most resource-rich nations in Europe. The country is home to the continent’s largest reserves of lithium, titanium, and uranium.
According to data from the Ukrainian geologic survey, Ukraine possesses 5% of the world’s mineral resources, including 23 of the 50 materials deemed critical by the U.S. government. These include:
- Titanium– Used in aerospace and military applications
- Graphite– Essential for battery production
- Lithium– A key component of lithium-ion batteries
- Beryllium– Vital for defense and telecommunications
- Rare Earth Elements– Crucial for electronics, renewable energy, and defense industries
Source: Visual Capitalist
Where are the deposits?
The Independent says:
A little over £6 trillion of Ukraine’s mineral resources, which is around 53 per cent of the country’s total, are contained in the four regions Mr Putin illegally annexed in September 2022, and of which his army occupies a considerable swathe.
That includes Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, though Kherson holds little value in terms of minerals.
The Crimean peninsula, illegally annexed and occupied by Mr Putin’s forces in 2014, also holds roughly £165bn worth of minerals.
The region of Dnipropetrovsk, which borders the largely occupied regions of Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia, and sits in the face of an advancing Russian army, contains an additional £2.8 trillion in mineral resources.
Russian difficulties with major military operations seem likely to preclude a serious attempt to take the region but mining operations in the area would be perilous with Moscow’s soldiers so close.
Before the Russian invasion, Ukraine had registered 20,000 mineral deposits, with 8,700 of them proven and encompassing 117 of the world’s 120 most used metals and minerals, according to the Center for International Relations and Sustainable Development.
Other key points made by Al Jazeera:
- The country has some of the world’s top recoverable coal, gas, iron, manganese, nickel, ore, titanium and uranium reserves.
- Most of these minerals span Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporzhizhia, Dnipropetrovsk, Korovohrad, Poltava and Kharkiv.
- Russia, which controls approximately 20 percent of Ukraine, including large parts of Luhansk, Donetsk and Zaporzhizhia, is sitting on about 40 percent of Ukraine’s metal resources.
- Ukraine has said that a significant portion of its rare earth elements are in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.
However, despite all the hype about rare earths in Ukraine, the country doesn’t even make the top 12 countries ranked by the US Geological Survey as having the largest rare-earth mineral reserves. These countries are, in order, China, Brazil, India, Australia, Russia, Vietnam, the US, Greenland, Tanzania, South Africa, Canada and Thailand.
Are They Mineable?
According to IEEE Spectrum, Ukraine doesn’t have any mineable rare earths. The publication quotes Erik Jonsson, senior geologist with the Geological Survey of Sweden, who says there are four areas with substantial deposits of rare earth ores, and four slightly bigger deposits: Yastrubetske, Novopoltavske, Azovske and Mazurivske.
All but one are within the zone that the Russians currently control.
The other problem is identifying the size of the deposits. While numbers are available, there is no detailed outline of how they were arrived at, and they are believed to come from the Soviet era dating as far back as the 1960s.
“The rare-earth deposits don’t look that relevant,” Jonsson concludes. “I mean, I wouldn’t go for them.” Two of the deposits are dominated by a mineral called britholite, he notes, which is not desirable because it has not been processed for rare earths, which means that almost nothing exists in the way of process chemistry and equipment.
Jack Lifton, executive chairman of the Critical Minerals Institute, is more scathing in his criticism.
“If you want critical minerals, Ukraine ain’t the place to look for them. It’s a fantasy,” he says. “There’s no point to any of this. There’s some other agenda going on here. I can’t believe that anybody in Washington actually believes that it makes sense to get rare earths in Ukraine.”
“I doubt very much that President Trump cares about rare earths,” adds Lifton. “He’s being told they’re important. He’s operating as a pure businessman.”
There is ample truth in what Lifton is saying, if one knows anything about rare earths.
Mining rare earth elements is fairly straightforward but separating and extracting a single REE takes a great deal of time, effort and expertise.
According to one expert, the ore is first ground up using crushers and rotating grinding mills, magnetic separation and flotation gives the lowest-value sellable product in the rare earth supply chain: the concentrated ore. The milling equipment — crushers, grinding mills, flotation devices, and electrostatic separators – all have to be configured in a way that suits the type of ore being mined. No two ores respond the same way.
The next step is to chemically extract the mixed rare earths from the concentrated ore (cons) by chemical processing. The cons must undergo chemical treatment to allow further separation and upgrading of the REEs. This process, called cracking, includes techniques like roasting, salt or caustic fusion, high-temperature sulfidation, and acid leaching which allow the REEs within a concentrate to be dissolved. This separates the mixed rare earths from any other metals that may be present in the ore. The result will be still-mixed-together rare earths.
The major value in REE processing lies in the production of high-purity rare earth oxides (REOs) and metals but it isn’t easy. A REE refinery uses ion exchange and/or multi-stage solvent extraction technology to separate and purify the REEs. Solvent-extraction processes involve re-immersing processed ore into different chemical solutions to separate individual elements. The elements are so close to each other in terms of atomic weight that each of these processes involve multiple stages to complete the separation process. In some cases it requires several hundred tanks of different solutions to separate one rare earth element. HREEs are the hardest, most time consuming to separate.
The composition of REOs can also vary greatly. They can and often are designed to meet the specifications laid out by the end product users — a REO that suits one manufacturer’s needs may not suit another’s.
Less technically, The Independent says investors highlight a number of barriers to investment in Ukraine, such as inefficient, complex regulatory processes, difficulty accessing geological data, and obtaining land plots. They said such projects would take years to develop and require considerable up-front investment.
It’s worth noting that the United States currently has only one operating rare earths mine, Mountain Pass in California. Rare earths are mined and made into a concentrate before being shipped to China for further processing.
Developing a mine from discovery to production in places like the United States and Canada can take upwards of 20 years.
Is the Minerals Deal Still On?
It appears to be. After the disastrous meeting in the Oval Office, Zelensky wrote a letter to Trump saying that Ukraine is ready to sign the minerals deal — even though the US hasn’t offered Ukraine any security guarantees.
The current ceasefire deal looks to be heavily skewed toward Russia’s demands. Ukraine and Russia have agreed to a moratorium on attacking each other’s ships in the Black Sea. However, the Kremlin said it would only implement the ceasefire once the US delivers sanctions relief on Russian agricultural products and fertilizers, The Guardian pointed out Wednesday, noting that observers are questioning whether Russia has given anything to secure its first offer of sanctions relief since the beginning of the war. Ukraine has opposed any sanctions rollback on Russia.
The Guardian analysis said the Trump administration appears ready to make a deal with Russia that offers two prices to halt its war with Ukraine: political and military concessions from Ukraine as well as an escape from the international isolation that began after its full-scale invasion in 2022.
This was my take when I first started to look at the maps: most of the good stuff is, perhaps unsurprisingly, in the conquered easternmost territory.
But I could have sworn that it was here at NC–and maybe from you, Yves–that I obtained the idea that a little invasion of mining companies and personnel, swarming over the eastern-most portions of territory not yet taken by Russia, would serve as a kind of de facto army and post-conflict security for Ukraine. This struck me as a kind of curious genius on Trump or someone’s part, a way to avoid committing troops but create a US (implicitly protected) presence there between Ukraine and Russia, buffer that would prove significant impediment to further incursions or breaking of pacts/peace. Once the US, and US interests, are a much more significant presence further military action courts open world war.
And yes, Trump can claim another one of his (maybe) more hollow than not victories in a declaration of peace. Peace with benefits.
Was sure I espied some suggestion of this in an earlier piece here.
The rare earths part of the deal is a smokescreen. Even the tripwire aspect of giving US a vested interest in peace in the Ukraine is a distraction. The point to focus on is the oil and gas, which includes transit infrastructure.
The US wants to prevent Europe and Russia ever having a unified economic zone of European industry powered by cheap Russian energy. The US wants Europe to buy US energy and to loot European industry and preferably reshore it to the US, as it circles the wagons of Fortress North America for late-stage, declining Empire (it wants Canada for minerals and long-term oil and gas, too).
Step one has been achieved, the destruction of independent EU-Russia pipelines. Step two is reopening of the transit trade across the Ukraine under US control. The quid pro quo for Russia is a demilitarised Europe, an increased oil and gas price to Europe (even after the US vig on transit) and an end to sanctions. Russia will be free to sell oil and gas at whatever price it likes but the price of energy in the “Free World” will be controlled by the US because they will control domestic N American prices and European prices through transit (LNG and pipelines). I think Russia thinks this a good deal: the EU never embraced it so let it be crushed in the US bearhug instead.
Europe still has pipelines through Turkey so Turkey will be the next power that the US deals with to ensure energy control. Russia may not help Erdogan here: he has not helped much with Ukraine or in the Caucasus and he has positively harmed Russian interests in Syria and thus Iran. Returning to a world of Russia-US relations and a cowed Turkey may be preferable, provided the Montreux Convention remains in force.
Morocco and Algeria and, if patched together, Libya also represent European chances to escape a US energy stranglehold. Watch these spaces closely in coming years. Spain and Italy are the key routes. Italy’s ambitions as an energy hub seem to have stalled. Spain is semi detached from EU energy markets and new pipelines are opposed bizarrely by the French. The EU cannot help itself!
“Watch these spaces closely in coming years.”
A few years ago, there was quite a lot of excitement about the gas fields offshore Cyprus, with the EU and Turkey, but also Israel, Lebanon, and Egypt eyeing the newly discovered bounty.
I do not know why the excitement has abated there (were those reserves overhyped?), while the interest has shifted to looting the gas fields offshore Palestina, but it seems like another region where “interesting” moves might soon take place.
There is essentially one large field stretching between Turkey and Libya and thus encompassing every bad actor available! Turkey, Cyprus, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Gaza, Libya and maybe a touch of Egypt. So you have Russia, the US, the EU, Iran and the Gulf States interested as well as the direct players above.
Once Russian gas to the east of Europe is closed off, attention will move to these fields in Eastern Med and, their flip side, the crazy via-Israel transhipment corridor that USA is promoting. There’s investment synergy in the infrastructure and Saudi needs to sponsor both energy and cargo routes via Israel for it to be viable. Turkey is against this as was Iran.
One could imagine Turkey, Syria and Iran making common cause to develop the routes to Europe that bypass Israel and the Gulf (and deal with Kurds, all in exchange for Zanzegur Corridor agreement) but the USA has blown up NATO critical infrastructure before (Nordstream) so don’t hold your breath….
With the US / Turkey conflicts increasing and Turjey offering the EU strategic choices on energy, another state to watch is Cyprus. It has claims in the Eastern Med gas field, it hosts British Sovereign Bases, it has an unresolved ethno-religious civil war and UN peacekeepers, it is in the EU but not NATO whereas Turkey (and thus unrecognised Northern Cyprus) is the opposite) and it falls within the Eastern, Orthodox Church and thus somewhat a Russian cultural sphere. One can imagine that both states on Cyprus could be weaponised by any and all of Turkey, Russia, EU or USA in a project to prevent any Turkish/Syrian pipeline development….
Greece has claims on that gas field too.
It’s been discussed as having development potential since at least the 2015 Greek bailout crisis. Nada has happened. That suggests strongly to me that nada will happen.
Interesting that you mention this because Greek headlines today are all about Chevron being licensed to explore the fields south of Crete for gas. The reason there have so far been no developments there is because Turkey and (western) Libya signed a memorandum claiming exclusive rights over that area, which has been denounced as illegal by Greece since it ignores Crete’s right to an EEZ, contrary to UNCLOS. Nobody was going to drill in a disputed area, but the fact this was announced just after Turkish FM Fidan visited Washington to negotiate reentering the F-35 program combined with no Turkish response to the news so far makes it look like this was a concession on the part of Turkey. If things keep going smoothly I can’t help but think Greece also in turn made some concession to Turkey that will be revealed in the future.
The US wants Canada for its water as much as its minerals, oil and gas. For the Full Monty of imperial consolidation and hydro-engineering wet dreams, google NAWAPA.
Correct!
Trump and Zelenskiyyyyyy (sic) are just performers.
To find Lithium etc., look for salt flats. Australia has billions of tons of Heavy Mineral Sands. Titanium, Thorium, Zirconium etc.
Energy is the key to warfare, more so than industry. Coal fired planes have yet to catch on.
War is PEACE!
Brine from a salar will have a few hundred parts per million Li; the kind of Li deposits you find in Ukraine (or Serbia) are a few weight percent lithium eg 10s of thousands of ppm
It’s important to remember that rare earths are not at all rare. The problem with production is that that the trivalent lanthanides are extremely similar to each other; so that very expensive methods must be used to prevent the isolation processes from polluting the environment. Thus, the key to competitive production is having an authoritarian government that can suppress any objections from surrounding communities.
“the trivalent lanthanides are extremely similar to each other”
I know this is a naive question, but if those elements are that similar to each other, wouldn’t some industrial processes work adequately with a mixture of them rather than with the refined, individual elements?
It’s not their use in industrial processes, but their use as dopants in phosphors or very very high strength permanent magnets that is critical. Using the wrong one will reduce the number of “very”s.
There are “rare earth magnesium alloys” where the specific elements are not important and a mixture of rare earth elements is ok. There may be other structural alloys that can function with a mixture. Other uses, as noted below, can be very specific and require high purity.
Having been the geologist on a REE project some years ago, that statement is misleading.
Rare earth elements are distributed in miniscule amounts in most rocks. That’s where the “rare earth elements aren’t really rare” statement comes from. However, finding useful concentrations of these elements is indeed rare. Most experienced geologists have never seen monazite or bastnatite. That includes in the field, in a classroom, or in a museum.
Consider that Iron is one of the most common elements in rocks, yet iron mines aren’t ubiquitous. REE are several orders of magnitude less common than iron. Please stop with the “not so rare”. They are.
Thank you, I was just going to raise this same objection.
An ore deposit of any element represents a concentration many orders of magnitude above crustal average; parroting “REEs aren’t rare” indicates that the speaker doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
Yup, on the authoritarian government, see Appalachia and coal mining, or uranium mining in the southeast, or Cancer Alley in Louisiana and Mississippi.
I was going to make the point that Revenant has. “Rare earths” is just a cover story for the more obvious trophies of ports (Odessa), oil, gas and coal, and whatever public utilities (including nuclear in what is now Russia) that Trump wants to pry away. And most of all its real natural resource, fertile land.
I entered college as a chemistry major, by the way, and have had long discussions with Chinese officials over many years about rare earths. The problem is in refining them, and it is environmentally dirty, and expensive.
So we’re dealing with a distraction to divert attention from what would be instantly recognized as a much more intrusive and serious asset grab.
*Sigh*
Did you not read the piece?!?!
The state of Ukraine can only trade in government owned, not private assets.
The gas is over 85% in the areas Russia now controls. It has not been exploited, which suggests it would be high cost and not very competitive.
Ukraine has bupkis in the way of oil, only 0.02% (no typo) of world proven reserves.
The coal is also mainly in Russian controlled or claimed areas, and you can be sure that any exploitable coal is privately owned and is being or has been mined, as in outside any deal.
The agricultural land is not part of the deal. And in any event, that is overwhelmingly not owned by the state either.
Putin has made very clear that nothing in the Russia controlled or claimed regions is subject to barmy US theft attempts. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs just released a blistering smackdown of the US trying to claim the Zaporzhizhia power plant:
https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2025/03/to-thos-who-still-read-press.html
Please stop dignifying US stupidity. I hate to sound harsh, but frankly, it demeans you.
Yves, it is not about anything extractable from Ukrainian territory, not food or gas or minerals. It is about what is extractable from the EU! It is about control of the energy transit infrastructure, which *is* in the deal. The rest is cover.
As for ZNPP, it is physically Russia’s and no Ukrainian will ever touch the controls again, I agree, but Putin is a legalist, there are all sorts of compensation claims to deal with and property rights of the dispossessed to address and it is perfectly straightforward to imagine a deal in which the Ukraine has an energy offtake agreement from ZNPP and the USA is cut into that.
Trump is willing for the USA to be guarantor of deals in the manner of the property deals he is familiar with: not for free but compensated financially and strategically and (not a propertt world consideration!) not committing its military.
No, Putin has made VERY clear otherwise in statements on this matter. You have not been paying attention.
The believed US play was to get Westinghouse in to run the plant, which is absurd in general and in particular since Westinghouse knows bupkis about Soviet reactors.
I will repeat this unusually sharp smackdown from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs yesterday:
https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2025/03/to-thos-who-still-read-press.html
As for the pipeline network, Europe is so profoundly hysterical about Russia, and this is set to persist for at least a generation, I have seen no one suggest that control of the pipelines is necessary to keep the EU divorced from Russia. And in any event, Russia has reoriented its energy sales to China and the Global South. This Bloomberg article have a very long inventory of what might be in a “deal” and the pipelines are mentioned in passing, as an economically already dead asset.
https://archive.is/61jqp
I absolutely agree with you that the US and the Ukraine will NEVER operate ZNPP again. They may never be allowed nearer than the right bank of the Dnieper!
But In read that statement when it first came out and the concepts of control and operation are very specific. Nothing stops the Ukraine having a power offtake agreement when the fighting is over.
As for the transit pipelines being dead, the EU is busy buying Russian gas, as LNG and through Turkstream. Once the peace is made without them, refusing to use them loses its leverage. There will just be big press conference about how the EU is buying brave Ukrainian gas again to help rebuild Ukraine and thank our ally / overlord the USA, and a quick reminder that we have always been at peace with WestAsia and at war with EastAsia.
I suspect the pipelines across the Ukraine will be welcome right about the time Turkstream mysteriously blows up or Donny bombs Iran….
I don’t know what “power offtake agreement” exactly means. How does it differ from selling (or giving away) electricity the regular way (especially considering that power plants are connected to the grid)? Why would using power from it require any form of (co-)ownership, even “on paper”? Just because Putin is a legalist (that knows what nationalization is), doesn’t mean that he is willing to play nonsensical legal games with essential infrastructural objects (especially a nuclear one).
P.S. For context,
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/03/trump-trying-to-retrade-minerals-deal-with-ukraine.html#comment-4194516
Reinforcing the point that Michael Hudson made, I think that this whole rare earths saga is just a bait and switch. I think too that it may have been Lindsay Graham going on about the trillions of mineral wealth in the Ukraine and that it could not be allowed to fall into Pew-tin’s hands that started it. This was nothing new as about a decade ago a justification for not leaving Afghanistan was the trillions of dollars worth of minerals in the back country which could not be allowed to fall into China’s hands. Trump seized on this idea and made a big song and dance about it saying that America needed those rare earths in payment for destroying the Ukraine and the creation of a 21st century Lost Generation in that country. Regardless, that was the bait and the Republicans went along with it as did Graham. But now we are coming to the switch part. So what does he want in the end? I think that he wants the US to sit between Russia and the EU so that the US has control over their economy via controlling access to energy. And that mean taking control of the Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. That is why too this talk of re-starting the remaining NS2 pipeline – but under control of US investors. By controlling energy flows into the EU, they will never be able to be a rival to US economic power and will in fact become a null factor in the world’s economy.
The current world market for rare earths is $15 billion, expected to go to 30$ in mid 2030’s.
That $500 billion is going to take forever to repay
That’s how debt slavery works (also, that’s how mafia works).
Many commenters here have given excellent rationales for which I am grateful. I just assumed it was an attempt on Trump’s part to be able to claim that the US would “get something” out of the whole Ukraine debacle — the “what” in question and its feasibility being neither here nor there.
I had also heard proposed (Alex Krainer, I think) that this is simultaneously a thumb in the eye to the Brits and their “100 year pact” with Ukraine, on the premise that Zelensky may already have peddled various elements of the deal the US now appears to intend to extract from him.
Krainer is the only one who has made that claim. I have seen no evidence of him having special connections to the British Government, which would have to be better than those of all other journalists, who would presumably be in line (ahead of him) for any such juicy leak.
On top of that, I have seen him write things about finance, particularly the 2008 crisis, that are “put foot in mouth and chew” level wrong.
I do not understand why he is given any credence.
Yeah, I recall in particular a very bad take he had last year that some imminent calamity was about to befall the UK — which amounted to nothing.
There is a lot of fat and muscle in ‘urop to be stripped away, but to me it looks like sarcopenia as well as misdirected spending and balooning debts will make ‘urop pretty, pretty fast a non desirable entity. Aged population in need of dippers, in debt, no resources, unnable to compete, no innovation, authoritarian, high on its own farts… This is not a place for business…
Sadly I agree. A new place to live is needed…. :-(
If we believe the Telegraph (if!), this is what they call a rapidly developing situation.
https://archive.is/FrNa4
Highlights of the admissions / hang-outs include:
1) that the deal includes turning back on Russian gas across the Ukraine and explicitly inserting the US in the middle. Breathtakingly, it even includes what I thought the US would not permit, the reopening of Nordstream, which is not a Ukrainian asset, with a US economic interest. That really is cucking the EU! Donny has such chutzpah!
2) that the EU sanctions regime expires in July unless there is unanimous agreement to extend (Hungary? Slovakia?)
3) a quote from Lavrov saying “There is talk about Nord Stream. It would be interesting if the Americans put pressure on Europe, to make them stop refusing our Russian gas.”
4) excerpts from the agreement hilariously read in their prolix transactional cupidity like it has been drafted by Delaware partnership lawyers (because of course it has been) rather than by statesmen in the gaze of history.
“UNITED STATES-UKRAINE RECONSTRUCTION INVESTMENT FUND
AGREEMENT OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
This Agreement of Limited Partnership of the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, a Delaware limited partnership (the “partnership”), dated as of [-] [-], of 2025 (the “Effective date”) is by and among [GP/LLC], a Delaware limited liability company, in its capacity as the general partner of the partnership (along with any successor or addition general partners admitted in accordance with this Agreement, each solely in its…”
…
“Notwithstanding the terms of Section 4.1 hereunder, the Partners recognize that the contributions of the United States following the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 have provided material and financial benefits to Ukraine. As such, the Partners have agreed that such contributions in addition to technical and management assistance provided by DFC to the Partnership are deemed as contributions to the Partnership as of the date hereof (the “DFC Initial Contribution”). Each of the Partners agrees that the DFC Initial Contribution shall be deemed for all purposes hereunder to have a Fair Value equal to the investment amount as set forth on Schedule I hereto as of the date hereof In consideration of the DFC Initial Contribution, DFC shall be granted the Partnership Units issued in such amounts and corresponding to such Classes of Units as set forth therein.”
NB: note the propaganda: “full-scale Russuan invasion” = big boys made me do this to you!
5) interestingly, while the article supports my argument about the US taking a skim from transit business, the example of agreement text dealing with Natural Resources does not cover this but elsewhere in the article it says, without exemplification in the text, that the US will take control of all transit media, regasification plants etc.
” “Natural Resources Projects” shall mean the development, extraction, exploitation, processing, refining or other use (whether prospective or actual) of Natural Resource Relevant Assets with respect to which the Ukrainian Government has granted or may grant Licenses to any Person (including any parastatal or state owned enterprises), or that the Ukrainian Government has developed or may develop under its own control or for its own benefit.
” “Natural Resource Relevant Assets” shall mean Critical Minerals or other minerals, oil, natural gas (including liquified natural gas), fuels or other hydrocarbons and other extractable materials.”
6) the overall deal grants a 50% share to the US of royalties on the revenues but with a priority return of 100% until USD100bn plus 4% interest has been repaid. This is held to equal the value if US contributions to the war already made.
7) some commentators consider the deal incompatible with EU membership and wonder if it is designed to be rejected or more cunningly is a poison pill (in Trump-speak, to prevent EU takeover of Ukraine for its own purposes).
I think they are missing the point, delusionally or deliberately: it is about control of Europe, redividing it economically between Russia and the USA. It us a Cold War for the central hearing of a continent!
It’s a beautiful thing, this deal, if it happens. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of neo-Nazis. A geopolitical “Because Markets, Go Die” but not in that order.
Thanks for letting me know about this article.
However….not to get ad hom (and you did signal appropriate reservations), but the Telegraph is the most fervently pro-Ukraine pub in the UK and has more than occasionally run outlier stories that proved false. There’s an obvious tell in just what you highlighted.
The EU sanctions have always required reapproval every six months and have been reapproved every time, with the last time March 15, 2025:
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2025/03/14/eu-extends-sanctions-against-russia-following-delay-from-hungary-a88365
Hungary forced a small delay to get four individuals removed from the list.
Hungary and Slovakia would never dare throw a serious spanner. They’d have their EU funds cut off and they need them.
So I can’t take what the Telegraph says seriously with a glaring error like that without independent confirmation of other claims (as opposed to what amounts to re-reporting, which too often happens).
However, to your point about the US and Ukraine trying to steal non-Ukraine assets (Nordstream 2) which was developed by Gazprom and was substantially funded by loans from EU private companies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream_2
I have no idea if that loan was secured but it ought to be, either by the pipeline itself or some % of the revenues. So if there is any truth to the story and the lenders have an economic interest, expect them to yell bloody murder….since among other things the EU is very much in “We are punitively divorced from Russia” mode and would press them to make a stink.
Yes, the Telegraph manages to be rabidly anti-EU and anti-Russia, without somehow its collective head exploding, and its commentators are often delusional. But it is also much closer to the “conservative” parts of the UK establishment (really, the radical conservative parts, like the Tory party and MI5, MI6 and dissident parts of MoD front-line and staff officers rather than the Foreign Office or MoD policy blob) than other papers so it is exactly where competing briefings from lunatics like Hamish de Bretton Gordon and White Helmets and Belling Cat are hung out alongside security services’ trial balloons.
My take is that the article is road-testing the reaction to peace terms while positioning them as Trump betraying Ukraine: I’ll bet they find a collective “meh” from the Telegraph readership and therefore decide they can dial up the benefits and dial down the Dolchgestoss rhetoric….
I don’t know enough about the Nordstream 1 and 2 funding structures to guess how the US plans to walk away with it but I share your incredulity that it is supposedly on the table. Possibly they will sell it by insisting that Russia “compensate” Ukraine with a stake in NS (which in reality will be protection money to the US) and/or EU give Ukraine part of its stake in Nordstream towards “rebuilding” Ukraine and addressing Ukrainian concerns about NS’s threat to transit revenues (I.e. US royalties). In this way, the ultimate benefit to the US can be sold as a masterstroke of negotiation to win benefits for Ukraine….
On the EU sanctions regime, I haven’t followed the mechanics of its maintenance and I was not aware of the six month renewal. And I fully acknowledge your point about the leverage the EU has over holdouts.
However, right now, the US is creating a lot of leverage for itself (25% tariffs etc.) plus it has so far issued waivers for EU purchases of Russian gas, uranium etc. I can see the next sanctions vote being a Kabuki play, where the EU is shown the knife beforehand and everybody dresses up the capitulation as Nasty Hungary or Nasty Slovakia using its veto in the sanctions reauthorisation vote….
What about existing Ukrainian sovereign debt?
How is this not a “cramdown” on the creditors (IMF, World Bank, EU) who are owed billions?
Without the minerals and other natural resources, a future Ukrainian state will have no way to service that debt. Ukraine is already in deep trouble after losing the four oblasts plus some big industrial operations like the Metinvest Coke facility near Pokrovsk. This “deal” is completely one-sided, and sounds completely illegal or in violation of the principles of finance (senior creditors take priority.) I’m not a finance guy though.
No worries.
Russia is going to take over all of Ukraine.
All debts, agreements & contracts with the “west” will be renounced.
Every $, Euro & pound spent/invested in setting up & executing the proxy war against Russia is gone. Burnt up in east Ukraine or stolen & invested in real estate around the world or hidden away in the Rothschild cartels private banks.
The problem for the west is that it made loans to Ukraine for the war, so at some point it must look for a way to be repaid – Europe is still happy to keep kicking the problem down the road in the hope of a payday. By laying claim to Ukrainian resources, even if they don’t really exist, the US puts itself in the position of being able to create more false accounting to balance its books and fund its war machine, just as it did in Iraq.
The extra bookable profits, even though not real, will be enough for the US to throw credit slops around to help balance for the war with China. Of course, without the actual raw materials that it is claiming, its war on China is doomed to fail because it won’t be able to make the war material it needs