Washington/Kyiv| A newly proposed U.S.-Ukraine mineral agreement aimed at deepening economic cooperation has triggered widespread controversy and sharp criticism, with Ukrainian officials and international observers likening the terms of the deal to “economic colonization” and “robbery.”
The draft agreement, reportedly finalized on March 23 and disclosed to the public on the 27th, outlines the establishment of a joint “Rehabilitation Investment Fund” through which the United States would gain expansive control over Ukraine’s vast natural resources, infrastructure, and strategic assets.
The draft has been widely covered by international outlets including The Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Telegraph.
According to the documents, the fund would oversee a broad range of Ukraine’s extractive assets, including rare earth minerals, oil, natural gas, fuels, and other hydrocarbons.
The draft further stipulates U.S. authority over metals such as lithium, titanium, aluminum, and zinc — all of which are considered essential under the U.S. Energy Act.
Beyond resource control, the agreement extends to transportation and logistics infrastructure.
Assets targeted include roads, railways, pipelines, ports, wharves, as well as refineries, mineral processing plants, and natural gas liquefaction and regasification facilities — critical components of Ukraine’s natural resource value chain.
Structural Dominance and Financial Leverage
Critics argue that the deal effectively places Ukraine’s natural wealth under U.S. management.
Of the five board seats in the Rehabilitation Investment Fund, three would be held by U.S. appointees, granting Washington a controlling interest and unilateral veto power over decisions.
Moreover, the United States would recover the cost of military assistance and other aid provided since Russia’s 2022 invasion through revenues generated by the fund.
Ukraine would not be eligible to receive any share of the profits until it has repaid at least $100 billion, at an annual interest rate of 4%.
The agreement also mandates adherence to New York State law, grants the U.S. government a right of first refusal on all Ukrainian development projects, and allows for U.S. audits of Ukrainian ministries and agencies during working hours — a clause some critics say amounts to sovereign intrusion.
Furthermore, the U.S. would reserve the right to block sales of Ukrainian resources to third countries, raising alarms over Kyiv’s autonomy in conducting foreign economic policy.
Ukrainian Response and International Criticism
The draft has faced growing resistance within Ukraine. Yaroslav Zeleznyak, a member of Ukraine’s National Assembly, predicted on a YouTube broadcast that the deal’s approval by Parliament would be “extremely difficult” and “highly unlikely,” citing concerns over fairness and national interest.
Ukrainian officials who reviewed the proposal denounced it as “unfair” and “exploitative,” drawing comparisons to modern-day looting.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, addressing reporters in Paris, acknowledged frustrations with the negotiation process but maintained a diplomatic tone.
“We don’t want to give the impression that Ukraine generally disagrees with the deal,” Zelenskyy said. “But the United States is continuously changing the terms, and there are important elements that need to be clarified and adjusted.”
Prominent international voices have also weighed in. The Telegraph criticized the U.S. for placing undue pressure on a democratic ally “defending the West’s outer flank from Russian imperialism,” writing that “the United States has a gun to Zelenskyy’s head and demands unprecedented compensation.”
Alan Riley, an energy law expert affiliated with the Atlantic Council, called the draft a “request for bids without protections,” adding, “There are no guarantees, no legal safeguards — I’ve never seen anything like this before.”
Strategic Context
The agreement comes as the U.S. looks to secure critical minerals and strengthen its foothold in resource-rich regions amid intensifying global competition with China and Russia.
Ukraine, with its abundant rare earths and energy reserves, is seen as a key strategic partner — but the terms of this deal have reignited long-standing concerns over economic sovereignty and Western leverage.
As negotiations continue, Ukraine faces the difficult task of balancing its urgent need for reconstruction aid and foreign investment with the imperative to maintain control over its national assets.
Whether the current draft is ratified, renegotiated, or scrapped altogether may ultimately depend on public pressure and parliamentary consensus in Kyiv.
Share This Post