In reality, this agreement appears more favorable to Ukraine than some earlier versions, but it brings no clear future for Kyiv, neither at the peace negotiation table nor on the battlefield.
Key Provisions of the New Agreement
Based on the 10-page document and its two-page annexes, the United States and Ukraine will establish a joint investment recovery fund to attract global capital for Ukraine. Full ownership and control of resources and mines within Ukraine’s territory and territorial waters will remain with Kyiv, and the Ukrainian government will determine where and which materials are to be extracted. The investment fund is structured as a 50/50 equal partnership, meaning Kyiv and Washington have equal shares in its joint management. According to Ukraine’s Ministry of Economy website, “neither party will have a dominant voice in the fund, reflecting an equal partnership between Ukraine and the U.S.” Contributions to the fund will be in cash and only through new authorizations for critical materials, oil, and gas projects. Meanwhile, Washington has the option to consider new military aid to Kyiv as a contribution or payment of its share to the fund. Income and contributions to the fund will not be taxed in either the U.S. or Ukraine.
The investment period for the fund is 10 years. During this time, the fund’s income will be exclusively invested in new projects or Ukraine’s reconstruction, with neither party permitted to withdraw any funds. Additionally, Washington will assist Kyiv in attracting investment and technology from funds and companies in the U.S., the EU, and other countries. According to the U.S. Treasury Secretary, countries and individuals who have financed or equipped “Russia’s war machine” will not be able to “benefit from Ukraine’s reconstruction.”
The agreement, which calls for a “historic economic partnership,” is designed to “leverage the shared assets, talents, and capabilities of both nations to accelerate Ukraine’s economic recovery.”
The most critical aspect of the new agreement is that Trump, contrary to claims and demands made during the first 100 days of his administration, makes no mention of recovering previous aid provided to Kyiv. This can be seen as a key concession from Trump to Zelenskyy, who had insisted that repayment of $350–500 billion in aid over the past three years was a prerequisite for any agreement between the two capitals.
The agreement also adopts a harsh tone toward Russia, labeling Moscow as the aggressor in the conflict—a departure from Trump’s earlier statements blaming Ukraine and Zelenskyy for the war.
The new agreement’s ultimate goal is to achieve “a free, independent, resilient, and prosperous Ukraine.” This marks a notable shift from Trump’s remarks earlier this year, in which he claimed “Ukraine was responsible for starting the war” and suggested “Ukraine might one day become part of Russia.”
The agreement also leaves the door open for Ukraine’s potential future membership in the European Union, emphasizing that investments must align with Ukraine’s obligations as an EU candidate country. It adds that if Ukraine joins the EU in the future, the agreement will be “renegotiated in good faith.”
However, a key point is that the signed agreement differs significantly from earlier drafts, highlighting that the U.S. retreated from many prior provisions.
In one early version, revenue from Ukraine’s minerals and other natural resources was to compensate the U.S. for military aid. However, in the final document, Washington’s military aid to Kyiv is classified as assistance, not a loan. Meanwhile, the funds the U.S. allocates to Ukraine post-signing will count as their contributions to the joint fund.
Security Issues: Ukraine dropped its primary demand for U.S. security guarantees as part of the agreement. This demand had led to the controversial meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump in the Oval Office in February.
Exclusive Access for the U.S.: While the agreement ensures preferential U.S. access to Ukraine’s mineral wealth, it does not grant exclusive rights, unlike earlier drafts.
Existing Resources: The agreement is limited to new projects, meaning the U.S. and Ukraine must invest in Ukrainian territory to generate profits. Active mines currently generating revenue for Ukraine are excluded.
Prospects for Continued U.S. Military Aid to Ukraine
Many experts believe the agreement will politically benefit Ukraine by enabling continued cooperation with the U.S., predicting increased American military aid. Timofiy Mylovanov, Ukraine’s former Economy Minister and current head of the Kyiv School of Economics, wrote on social media: “This is a major political and diplomatic victory for Ukraine. It gives Trump a domestic political win and a more positive stance toward Ukraine. Ukraine protected its interests in this deal. Despite unimaginable pressure, all harsh demands from the opposing side were dropped for Ukraine.”
Immediately after the signing, media reports revealed the Trump administration had agreed, for the first time since his second inauguration, to sell $50 million worth of weapons to Ukraine.
U.S. Security Guarantees to Ukraine
Analysts stress that the document includes no U.S. security guarantees for Ukraine, despite Zelenskyy’s push for them, particularly in exchange for access to Ukraine’s mineral resources. Thus, the agreement appears largely political—an effort to reset Ukraine-U.S. relations but lacking security assurances, a critical shortcoming for Ukraine. Ukraine has signed over 300 security agreements with international partners, far more impactful than the investment fund deal with the U.S.
Currently, no one in Washington wants to discuss security guarantees. Consequently, there is no near-term prospect of new weapons, military aid, or even humanitarian assistance from the U.S. Therefore, the agreement cannot be seriously considered a security guarantee for Ukraine.
A subtle point in the agreement is Trump’s framing of U.S. interests as a form of security assurance. When asked about U.S. security guarantees during the initial draft’s release, Trump replied: “When we gain ownership of mines in Ukraine, we will certainly use military forces to protect our assets there. These forces won’t be a mission to defend Ukraine but to safeguard U.S. interests. If Russia makes a mistake in its attacks and targets U.S. interests or forces, it will face retaliation.”
In the updated agreement, the U.S. claims that the presence of American companies and interests in Ukraine constitutes the “best security guarantee” Washington can offer Kyiv.
Conclusion
Examining various aspects of the U.S.-Ukraine agreement, it can be concluded that the deal lays the groundwork for longer-term relations. However, it offers no concrete guarantees for U.S. gains under the Trump administration.
However, the agreement’s primary significance is symbolic. Trump needed to feel that the U.S. had gained something from Kyiv, while Ukraine was required to demonstrate functional and improving ties with the White House. Ukraine’s allies also required this agreement to shift focus from the complex debate over military aid and the actual peace process.
The text includes two phrases particularly pleasing to Kyiv. First, it references “the widespread devastation caused by Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine”—a blunt, sharp statement from a White House often reluctant to criticize the Kremlin. Second, clarifying “how Ukraine might purchase weapons from the U.S.” is vital for Kyiv, given Russia’s battlefield dominance.
The document’s symbolic nature stems partly from its long-term outlook and potential political shifts in the coming years. If the war ends tomorrow, neither Kyiv nor Washington will have the same governments in three years. Thus, while the agreement is broad, ambitious, and transformative, its immediate impact on the frontlines is negligible. It is largely symbolic—akin to a temporary bandage—a contradictory and complex contract offering Trump ample media appeal.
No comments:
Post a Comment