America and Ukraine agree on a minerals deal, a good omen for the peace process
DONALD TRUMP this week marked his first 100 days back in power without having ended the Ukrainian war, as he had once promised to do on his first day. But the American diplomatic dial remains turned to max. So far, talks have not squared the circle: reconciling Ukrainian insistence on its territorial integrity with a Russian desire for Ukraine to publicly capitulate. But those close to the table speak of a new momentum, which was given a significant boost when on April 30th America and Ukraine signed a deal that grants America access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals in the shape of a new reconstruction investment fund the two countries will jointly manage.
The deal, which unlike earlier drafts crucially does not require Ukraine to use its minerals revenues to pay back past American military-assistance money, at one point erroneously calculated at $350bn by Mr Trump, is being seen as giving America a stake in maintaining Ukraine’s future security once the fighting stops. “This agreement signals clearly to Russia that the Trump administration is committed to a peace process centred on a free, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine over the long term,” America’s treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, said in a statement as he signed the deal for America. The Ukrainians had hoped for more, in the shape of detailed security guarantees; these have not been forthcoming despite several months of negotiation.
The full details of the new agreement have not yet been published, but the new investment fund will be 50-50 owned by America and Ukraine, and funded by the revenues from new licences for mineral exploration and extraction. It will make investments in the extraction of critical minerals, including the rare earths that so preoccupy Mr Trump, as well as in the oil and gas sectors. All profits are to be reinvested in Ukraine for the first decade.
Ukraine’s fragile new confidence does not stem from a belief that Mr Trump is about to bring peace for the ages. Rather it comes from a shift in mood—a sense that the American president may finally have got Vladimir Putin’s number, and just might, after months of threats and blackmail, have begun to respect his Ukrainian counterpart. A meeting in Rome between Mr Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky, brokered by France, with the Ukrainian agreeing to travel only after receiving last-minute confirmation, produced a striking photograph of the two men sitting in St Peter’s Basilica, locked in conversation as apparent political equals.
Ukrainian sources say Mr Zelensky used his 15 minutes to deliver a simple message: Ukraine is ready for an unconditional ceasefire, Russia is not, and Mr Trump should not abandon a peace that only he can deliver. A social-media post written by the American president afterwards suggested that he had got the message. His rebuke of Mr Putin for “tapping [him] along” was his strongest yet.
The Russian response so far has been distinctly underwhelming. An American official says the White House is unimpressed by Mr Putin’s latest proposal of a three-day ceasefire around Russia’s Victory Day on May 9th. A massive missile attack on Kyiv on April 24th, in which a North Korean-produced missile killed at least 12 people, visibly angered Mr Trump. “At the start of the process, Trump was very frustrated with Zelensky,” the American source says. “Now that has switched to Putin.” The Ukrainians have rejected the offer of the limited ceasefire. “If Russia truly wants peace, it must cease fire immediately,” wrote Ukraine’s foreign minister, Andriy Sibiha, on social media. “Why wait until May 8th?”
Russia has moved its red lines somewhat, publicly accepting the idea of direct negotiations with the Zelensky administration that it once derided as illegitimate. But elsewhere its public positions have hardened. It has returned to what it does best: slowly discussing “details”. On April 28th Sergei Lavrov, the foreign minister, said Russia needed full recognition of all its annexed territories, including parts of four provinces that it does not completely control. He also spoke about the need in Ukraine for demilitarisation and “denazification”, a term that had largely disappeared from his discourse.
That tough stance probably reflects a confidence that Russia can get what it wants by continuing its war of attrition and Ukraine’s psychological exhaustion. It may turn out to be dangerous, given Mr Trump’s strong desire to strike peace. But it would be unwise to suggest that the game is over for the Russians, who have shown skill in offering the Americans canny and corrupt business deals far beyond the scope of Ukraine. Mr Putin surely understands that he needs Mr Trump to remain engaged in peace negotiations—if only because it means the further normalisation of relations—and may well try to find a way to accommodate him. ■
To stay on top of the biggest European stories, sign up to Café Europa, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter.