A potential positive outcome of the interaction between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky recently was that it appeared to cast doubt on a minerals agreement between the U.S. and Ukraine.
However, it seems more reasonable perspectives are now taking precedence.
Zelensky stated on Tuesday that he is “reviving” the deal, and Trump has praised Ukraine’s willingness to do so. Officials from both nations have suggested they will meet next week to discuss the war in Ukraine and the agreement.
Based on available information, the proposed agreement would establish a fund using proceeds from Ukrainian mineral sales for Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction. It would also compensate the U.S. for aid to Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and generate opportunities for U.S. mining companies, allegedly reducing U.S. reliance on China for minerals. American officials have lauded the agreement as a “win-win,” beneficial for both the U.S. and Ukraine.
While enabling Ukraine to rebuild using its own resources and creating opportunities for U.S. businesses are both positive, Trump should be cautious of the minerals trap. This involves the potentially costly and unrestrained pursuit of rare-earth minerals, which can lead great powers into strategic difficulties.
The allure of resources partially explains why U.S. forces remained in Afghanistan long after their initial objectives were met. It may also explain the continued U.S. military presence in Syria under uncertain circumstances, despite the declared defeat of the Islamic State in 2019. Trump stated that year that American forces would remain “only for the oil.”
Russia has also recently fallen into the minerals trap in Africa, facing the risks of overextension as its soldiers become entangled in low-level conflicts to maintain access to resources. In the past six months alone, numerous Russian mercenaries have died in Mali protecting mines. Minerals also played a significant, but often overlooked, role in Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which has proven costly for Moscow.
Instead of fixating on repayment from Ukraine, Trump should prioritize U.S. security interests and carefully assess the costs and benefits of pursuing Ukrainian minerals.
On the benefits side, the potential gains may be limited, as much about Ukrainian minerals remains unknown.
The U.N. estimates that Ukraine possesses a notable share of the world’s rare earth minerals, including those most critical for national security. However, these assessments are based on outdated surveys that may not be accurate.
Furthermore, the investment and development time required to establish operational mines (averaging 16 years) are substantial. Location is also a major concern. Some of the mineral deposits are believed to be in eastern Ukraine, the epicenter of intense conflict since 2022 and clashes between Ukrainian forces and Russian-backed separatists since 2014. U.S. mining companies should be wary of making significant, long-term investments in the Donbas region.
Beyond the questionable economic benefits, the costs of securing Ukrainian minerals could be excessive. If U.S. companies invest, they will require protection from attacks by Russia and its local allies. Trump has suggested that the mere presence of U.S. workers in Ukraine will deter Russia due to the fear of harming Americans. As Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent noted, “The more assets that U.S. companies have on the ground, the more security it creates for the Ukrainian people.”
This is overly optimistic. Aside from the ethical considerations of using U.S. miners and engineers as a security force, deterrence does not function in this manner. History suggests that autocratic states like Russia are only deterred by a strong counterforce that poses a threat to their survival.
Without offering such a counterforce, U.S. miners and engineers would become attractive targets for Russian special forces or pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine who oppose Kyiv or U.S. mining operations. If attacks occur, Washington will face pressure to respond, either out of anger, to maintain credibility, or both. The U.S. might then provide Ukraine with the advanced weaponry Zelensky has requested, or even deploy U.S. troops to protect the mines. Both are scenarios the U.S. should avoid.
Ultimately, U.S. leaders need to approach Ukraine’s mineral resources with a healthy dose of pragmatism. Numerous other friendly nations and territories—Canada, Australia, Greenland, Norway, Sweden, and Finland, among others—possess a wealth of rare-earth minerals and could potentially form partnerships with Washington. As for Ukraine, its minerals are not worth the risk to U.S. security.
Trump, a self-proclaimed deal-maker, should recognize a poor deal when he sees one.
