There was cautious optimism in Kyiv on Thursday morning as Ukrainians reacted to the news that a long-awaited natural resources agreement with the United States had finally been signed. While the details of the minerals deal are still being digested, many have already noted that the key terms of the agreement are now far more favorable to Ukraine than previous drafts that some Ukrainian critics likened to “colonialist” exploitation.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky first raised the idea of a mineral-sharing agreement between Ukraine and the United States in late 2024, when he was trying to engage with Donald Trump ahead of the American presidential election. The idea gained momentum after Trump won the election, but a planned signing ceremony was canceled in late February after a disastrous meeting between Trump and Zelensky in the Oval Office.
When talks resumed in early spring, leaked details indicated a hardening of the American position, with American officials insisting on broad control over Ukrainian assets and seeking to use the proceeds to repay aid provided to Ukraine during the first three years of Russia’s full-scale invasion. But after weeks of grueling negotiations, the most contentious conditions were dropped, resulting in a more forward-looking document that lays the groundwork for a potential deepening strategic partnership between Kiev and Washington.
Ukrainian Economy Minister Yulia Svyrydenko, who traveled to the U.S. to sign the minerals deal Wednesday night after intense last-minute negotiations over the fine print, stressed that Ukraine would retain ownership and control over its natural resources. She noted that the final wording “provides for mutually beneficial terms” for both countries and praised the agreement as “an agreement that reaffirms the United States’ commitment to Ukraine’s security, recovery, and reconstruction.”
Back in Kyiv, many saw the signing primarily as an opportunity to improve relations with the Trump White House after a turbulent few months in which the US president used harsh rhetoric towards Ukraine, repeatedly accusing the country of Russian invasion. “Ukraine held the line. Despite enormous pressure, all excessive demands from the other side were rejected. The final deal looks fair,” commented Tymofiy Mylovanov, president of the Kyiv School of Economics. “This is a major political and diplomatic victory for Ukraine and the US, which gives Trump a domestic political boost. I expect this will lead to a more positive attitude towards Ukraine.”
There was also much praise for the Ukrainian negotiating team and its ability to accommodate U.S. interests while addressing Kyiv’s concerns. “This final version is significantly fairer and more mutually beneficial than previous drafts,” said Olena Tregub, executive director of the Independent Anti-Corruption Commission of Ukraine (NACO). “For me, the minerals agreement is a clear win-win for everyone. It is a well-coordinated, balanced deal that reflects both strategic vision and professionalism.”
Many members of Ukraine’s parliament have taken a pragmatic stance on the landmark mineral deal. “It looks like Trump was pressuring us to try to win in his first 100 days in office,” said Oleksandr Merezhko, a lawmaker representing President Zelensky’s Servant of the People party who chairs the Ukrainian parliament’s foreign affairs committee. “The devil is in the details. But politically, there are positives. We have improved relations with Trump, for whom this deal is a victory.”
Inna Sovsun, a member of the Ukrainian parliament representing the opposition Holos party, highlighted the unprecedented challenges Ukraine faced during the negotiations as the country tried to strike a fair deal with a key ally while fighting for its national survival. “We weren’t choosing between good and bad, we were choosing between bad and worse. What we got was better than the initial offer,” she said.
While the overall mood in Kyiv was relatively upbeat following the news from Washington, Sovsun stressed that the new natural resources agreement with the United States falls far short of the security guarantees Ukraine seeks to protect the country’s future and prevent further Russian aggression. “A true end to the war can only happen if the United States provides Ukraine with significantly more weapons, is willing to apply greater sanctions pressure on Russia, or, ideally, both. If neither happens, it is hard to expect the war to end.”
Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council's UkraineAlert service.
Source: Source
