President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine rejected a proposal from the Trump administration during a closed-door meeting on Wednesday that would have involved the relinquishment of half of the country's mineral resources in exchange for U.S. support. This information comes from five individuals briefed on the discussions.
The proposed deal would have granted the United States a 50 percent interest in Ukraine's mineral resources, including critical materials such as graphite, lithium, and uranium, as compensation for past and future support in Ukraine's ongoing conflict with Russia, according to two European officials. Additionally, the Trump administration expressed interest in Ukrainian energy resources.
Ongoing negotiations were confirmed by a Ukrainian official who requested anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the discussions. The unfolding situation highlights the growing divide between Kyiv and Washington regarding U.S. support and a potential resolution to the war.
The proposal was made during the first official visit to Ukraine by a member of the Trump administration, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Following the meeting, Ukrainian officials decided to review the offer and prepare a counterproposal for a subsequent meeting between Mr. Zelensky and Vice President JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference on Friday.
It remains unclear whether a counterproposal was actually presented. During a press conference in Munich, Mr. Zelensky acknowledged rejecting a deal from the Trump administration, although he did not disclose specific terms, noting a lack of security guarantees.
The absence of a security guarantee is crucial, as Ukraine believes the U.S. and Britain have not upheld their commitments to protect the country under a Cold War-era agreement related to Ukraine's denuclearization.
European diplomats expressed concerns regarding the proposal, describing it as reminiscent of colonial exploitation, where Western nations have historically taken advantage of smaller countries for their resources.
Additionally, confusion arose during discussions about the Trump administration’s plans for ending the conflict, with many European allies finding the proposals unclear.
According to a Ukrainian official and an energy expert familiar with the Bessent offer, it encompassed more than just half of Ukraine's minerals. The proposal also included claims to half of Ukraine's earnings from resource extraction and the sale of new exploration licenses, which could severely impact the Ukrainian government's revenue used to fund its defense efforts.
Discussions regarding leveraging Ukraine's mineral resources began last summer as Mr. Zelensky’s government aimed to appeal to Mr. Trump’s business-oriented mentality in light of fears that U.S. military and financial aid might be reduced. The idea was initially pitched during a September meeting in New York and garnered support from prominent political figures.
Historically, Ukraine has insisted that access to its natural resources would be contingent upon strong security guarantees from the U.S. However, the current proposal framed access to these resources as payment for earlier American military and financial assistance.
Ukraine possesses 109 significant mineral deposits, including those with titanium, lithium, and uranium, alongside oil and gas fields. However, many of these assets are located in areas already under Russian occupation or near conflict zones, casting uncertainty over their value. Investment challenges stemming from a complicated regulatory environment and previous corruption issues have further hindered interest in Ukrainian mining deals.
Previous interactions between Ukraine and the U.S. under the Trump administration indicated that deals could intertwine security and business interests. A past agreement allowed Ukraine to purchase coal from Pennsylvania, leading to increased U.S. military support for Ukraine.
A former diplomat remarked that, while past dealings seemed successful for both sides, the current proposal risked framing the conflict as one over natural resources rather than principles of democracy and national sovereignty.
Ultimately, he emphasized the importance of portraying the conflict as a defense of democratic values rather than a contest for resources.