Opinion US, Ukraine, critical minerals: Signed and sealed

On February 28, it looked like the relationship between Ukraine and its hitherto principal backer in the conflict with Russia had reached a nadir. At a time when Washington and Kyiv were expected to sign a deal on critical minerals, a conversation between US President Donald Trump, Vice President J D Vance and Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy descended into a shouting match, with the latter largely at the receiving end. Two months on, the broader geopolitical context has shifted again and the agreement was finally inked on April 30. Officially known as the US-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, it will ensure US access to Ukraine’s vast reserves of critical minerals. The breakthrough comes at a time when Washington’s push for peace has hardly yielded any dividends.

Ukraine’s mineral wealth has become a key factor in geopolitics. As the world accelerates efforts to decarbonise, the demand for critical minerals is surging. Electric vehicles, wind turbines, solar panels and energy storage systems all depend on minerals such as lithium, cobalt, and rare earth elements — resources that Ukraine holds in significant quantities. These are also used in semiconductor technology and for a wide range of defence production. Washington’s drive to secure these minerals is unsurprising, given that China controls the largest share of deposits.

Advertisement

Kyiv had insisted that any agreement must include strong and lasting security guarantees. However, Washington apparently acknowledges no such obligation. Instead, it merely states that the US “supports Ukraine’s efforts to obtain the security assurances necessary to build a lasting peace”. Despite this, Kyiv is likely to view the agreement positively, as a business arrangement with Trump may make him more receptive to Ukraine’s security needs. Additionally, the language used by the Trump administration towards Russia is harsher than usual. The deal highlights the US challenge of balancing economic interests with strategic goals but its implications for ending the conflict in Ukraine remain unclear. Although the US-brokered talks previously resulted in a 30-day limited ceasefire and ensured safe navigation in the Black Sea, the fighting has continued. Washington had also played a leading role in organising talks in Riyadh, but that momentum has waned. In the end, renewed dialogue among all parties remains the only path to peace.