What Trump Really Wants from Ukraine, Imposing a «Resource Agreement»

The situation that is unfolding regarding the provisions of the so-called resource agreement between Ukraine and the United States of America is very changeable and ambiguous. However, it is worth saying that the various information that is leaking into the media already gives some idea of ​​the nature of the future agreement between our country and the United States of America. Of course, it is clear that the details of the terms of this agreement on the natural resources of our country will change and will be rewritten more than once. From the latest version of the agreement on our country's minerals, for example, they have removed any numbers at all, replacing them with diplomatic formulations, but the most important thing that remains unchanged is the goal of this agreement regarding the valuable natural resources of our country, which the newly elected President of the United States of America Donald Trump seeks to achieve by signing this document. By the way, it seems that this goal does not in any way concern minerals as such, they are just a tool for achieving completely different goals. 

Mergers and acquisitions

The United States of America wants to record the amount of money that it has spent and will spend in support of Ukraine. It is worth noting the fact that currently only the framework agreement between the countries is being publicly discussed, all the mechanisms and details will be contained in another document, but even if the amount of money is not specified in the framework agreement on the valuable natural resources of our country, it will still appear in subsequent documents.

It is important to emphasize the fact that this amount of money, which, according to the newly elected President of the United States of America Donald Trump, we owe, will include EVERYTHING: both the amounts of direct budget support and the cost of supplied weapons and ammunition, including those supplies whose shelf life was expiring and the provision of which to Ukraine was a kind of “free disposal”.

In addition, it is worth noting the fact that the United States of America, led by the newly elected President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, proposed to apply the "one to two" principle. Thus, according to their plan, for every dollar of assistance provided, the political leaders of the United States of America are asking to provide them with two dollars of income from Ukrainian valuable natural resources, which will be contributed to the fund. It is also worth noting that the Fund will accumulate until it reaches the amount of assets of $500 billion. It is unlikely that their proposal has changed, even if this amount is not in the framework document, it should be expected in detailed plans for “cooperation”.

Thus, it turns out that under the terms of the agreement on natural resources that the political leaders of the United States of America want to conclude with our country, they will have full control over the fund's income, and it turns out that they can reinvest part of it in the development of economic assets in Ukraine. The fund's assets are investments and control over infrastructure facilities: energy, transport and ports.

And the fund's liabilities are contributions from the parties. On the part of the United States of America, this is the estimated value of the aid provided. On the part of Ukraine — revenues from granting permits for the use of valuable natural resources (rent and profits of state raw materials companies). Moreover, it should be noted that the fund is also responsible for issuing such permits.

The United States of America will have the right of "first night", like a feudal lord in the Middle Ages, that is, they will be the first to have broad rights to our natural resources. It must be said that this approach to conducting business means that the political leaders of the United States of America will be able to prohibit the development of certain resources, their sale to a third party and will have the right of priority acquisition of such resources.

In addition, it is worth emphasizing that all statements about the legal nullity of such an agreement, which are heard in Ukraine, are quite conditional and ambiguous, including the mention of Article 13 of the Constitution of Ukraine, our fundamental low, in which it is clearly stated that the owner of Ukrainian natural resources is the people. After all, it is important to remember that the agreement does not mention the sale of our natural resources: according to the agreement on valuable natural resources that the political leaders of the United States of America want to sign with our country, natural valuable resources remain in the conditional virtual property of the Ukrainian people. Thus, they will be in the same possession as before, just as they were previously “people's property” according to documents, but in fact the profit from their use was, in fact, the rental income of several oligarchic Financial and Industrial Groups (FIG).

In practice, there is only a certain upgrade of the scheme: if previously permits for the use of natural valuable resources were granted by the central executive body of Ukraine, i.e. the State Service of Geology and Subsoil of Ukraine and by relevant agreements of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (by structures authorized by it), and rental income from the use of natural valuable resources went to the state budget, then according to the draft agreement with the United States of America, such permits will be granted by the relevant fund. This fund will receive authority for its activity from the official “manager” of such natural valuable resources on behalf of the people, i.e. the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.

And the rental income will go to repay debts to representatives of the United States of America for the financial and military assistance received. Here, even the corresponding budget operations can be carried out: fund income - state budget income - state budget expenses to repay the state debt.

The issue is not in the subsoil, but in their assessment

It is worth emphasizing that one of the most important aspects of the agreement proposed to us on the "joint" use of Ukrainian natural valuable resources with the United States of America is not minerals, but the recognition by Ukraine of a new amount of debt money to the United States of America. Even if this amount of debt money appears in small print somewhere in the annexes to the agreement.

In a way, all these trillions of dollars that can be extracted from Ukrainian subsoil in the near future are more a myth than a reality. The fact is that If Ukraine had significant deposits of valuable rare earth minerals that could be easily extracted, Western companies would have long since shown interest in accessing such resources.

If Western companies entered such specific countries as Kyrgyzstan (gold mining), Kazakhstan (oil mining), Mongolia (copper mining), to develop and extract natural resources, then why wouldn't they enter the natural resources market of Ukraine and extract all these resources in our country - a country that since 2014 has announced active integration with the Western geopolitical cluster?

For example, the British-Australian Rio Tinto Group? It is worth noting that its subsidiaries are in Australia, Brazil, Guinea, Canada, Madagascar, Mongolia, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States of America. Moreover, this company extracts the natural resources that are also available in Ukraine, for example, iron ore, titanium, uranium, but has not yet shown interest in Ukrainian deposits of these natural resources.

By the way, it is worth emphasizing the fact that the entire mining industry of Ukraine in 2023, according to the State Statistics Service of Ukraine, is 262 billion UAH of gross product. Taking into account the average exchange rate of the hryvnia to the dollar of 36.57, we get a little more than 7 billion dollars per year, which is more than seven times less than the annual income of Rio Tinto Group only in its main areas of activity, without taking into account additional areas.

Moreover, it should be said that mining companies in the United States of America are focused on completely different types of natural resources than those that are available in Ukraine. For example, speaking on this topic, it is necessary to mention that Freeport-McMoRan with assets in the United States of America, Chile, Peru and Indonesia is the largest producer of copper, gold and molybdenum. In addition, it is worth emphasizing that this company has also absorbed its American competitor - Phelps Dodge Corporation (the second largest copper producer in the world). And a company such as Newmont Minings extracts gold (6% of world production and first place in the world).

Thus, as we can see, companies for the development and extraction of natural valuable resources of the United States of America control the mining business of copper (a key resource of the fourth-fifth technological systems), molybdenum (production of high-quality steel) and gold. As for the rest of the mining raw materials, the United States of America buys such raw materials for fiat dollars.

It is worth noting the fact that the Timet Plant — the last titanium sponge producer in the United States of America — closed in 2020, replaced by suppliers from Canada and Australia. Speaking of the lithium producer, Albemarle Corporation, is still operating, but its mining technologies are not suitable for our natural valuable resource deposits, and even the potential profit from working in Ukraine will be ten times less than the $ 5.4 billion that the company earned last year in the United States of America.

In general, all of the above confirms the thesis that our mining raw materials are not particularly interested in the political leaders of the United States of America.

Then why is all this happening now?

Public announcement

It is quite possible that this agreement on the natural resources of our country has a completely different purpose than declared.

Thus, according to the reasoning of the newly elected President of the United States of America Donald Trump, former President of the United States of America Joe Biden made the "biggest mistake" by not formalizing the financial and military assistance provided to Ukraine with a corresponding intergovernmental agreement. In this agreement with our country, according to the idea of ​​the newly elected President of the United States of America Donald Trump, the amount of debt and the repayment procedure should have been written at least, and preferably, with an interest rate.

It is worth noting that with this approach to conducting business, according to the newly elected President of the United States of America Donald Trump, former President of the United States of America Joe Biden has severely damaged American national interests.

For example, the European Union issued its aid in the form of loans, and therefore, if you look at the debt reporting of our Ministry of Finance of Ukraine (see table), you will see that as of December 2024, Ukraine owed the EU $ 44 billion out of $ 115 billion of our country's external public debt. It should be emphasized that even Canada issued its aid to our country in the amount of $ 5 billion, and this amount is reflected in budget entries.

On the other hand, if you look at Ukraine's debt to the United States of America, there are only zeros. That is, Ukraine officially does not owe anything to the United States of America. Thus, it is worth noting that our country did not owe the United States of America Neither $ 75 billion nor $ 175 billion. The result is a situation in which our country does not have to pay the United States of America not a dollar or a cent.

Of course, it is necessary to mention that in the reporting of our country there are debts to American banks (Chase Manhattan Bank), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), but not to the government of the United States of America.

Thus, the newly elected President of the United States of America Donald Trump wants to correct this (in his understanding) “mistake” made by former President of the United States of America Joe Biden. However, it is necessary to emphasize the fact that it is impossible to just come and say: “Sign the agreement, you received $ 75 billion from us.” The fact is that the assistance of the United States of America came in the form of grants or off-budget arms supplies. It is worth noting that these various“gifts” cannot simply be materialized in the form of debt, because there are no corresponding budget entries, and no one in Ukraine will sign a protocol on the so-called new debt, revealed due to circumstances that suddenly changed due to the elections in the United States of America.

Therefore, it is much easier to put this debt in the annexes to the agreement on the use of natural resources. The main thing in which is not a set of natural resources, but a fixed amount of compensation in favour of the United States of America from Ukraine for previously provided assistance.

Moreover, in addition to the written fixation of the debt, Ukraine's written consent is also required that this amount can be collected by levying a levy on its international assets. For example, such a written consent is required for the collection of foreign exchange reserves of the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU), which currently amount to more than 40 billion dollars. While dwelling on this topic, it is worth emphasizing that one important thing has been left out of the discourse, namely the simple question of why payments are expected not from the aggressor country, but from the victim of a full-scale military attack, essentially forcing it to pay reparations to its own ally?

The logic of the newly elected President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, is clear: he is “disappointed” that our country must pay off the $5 billion owed even to Canada, not to mention the payments to the countries of the European Union, to which our country owes $44 billion, and at the same time it turns out that our country does not owe money to the United States of America. But… As we can see, the amount of money owed is growing extremely rapidly, reaching incredible amounts and at the same time completely not corresponding to any real figures. In addition, it is worth saying that suddenly a “percentage” of the amount granted to our country retroactively appeared and it appeared in the form of the condition “two dollars for the dollar”, and the conditions of partnership in the management of our natural resources no longer look at all partnership and mutually beneficial in their form. And in general, it should be emphasized that recently the general rhetoric and behaviour of the newly elected President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, is not very friendly to our country.

Of course, if we were an equal geopolitical power to the People's Republic of China (PRC), we would never have signed such an ambiguous and unpleasant agreement for our country. Moreover, this agreement between Ukraine and the United States of America does not contain any information about any security guarantees for our country. Similarly, by the way, this agreement does not mention the participation of other allies in the development and extraction of our natural resources. Thus, it turns out that Great Britain, which signed a century-old security agreement with us, is not interested in large-scale resource projects in return.

Of course, at the moment we are only talking about a framework agreement, but if even now the framework agreement in the format in which it is presented to us by the political leaders of the United States of America makes us feel eerie and gives us a rather unpleasant feeling, then in this way we are unlikely to be pleasantly surprised by further details and elaborations in the future. It is especially worth mentioning that a “powerful” and experienced team of experts is working on the document – ​​First Vice Prime Minister Yulia Svirydenko, Deputy Prime Minister of Andriy Yermak Iryna Mudraya and Timofey Mylovanov. In addition, it is worth emphasizing that the negotiations are being conducted by an equally "powerful" and effective negotiator and fighter for defending state interests, namely Andriy Yermak.

Of course, military assistance from the United States of America is 60% of the front line, so its cessation is a direct threat to the existence of our country. But it is worth noting that we hardly have the opportunity to refuse at all (at least until our European partners give up and stop making effective decisions due to their powerlessness and inability to help us). It is necessary to emphasize the fact that the document we mentioned, which will detail the framework agreement, must be ratified by both the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and the Congress of the United States of America, according to the procedure - which means that there is already room for manoeuvre. Thus, no matter what anyone says, and in any case, we will have to find a compromise and bargain. Fortunately, the newly elected President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, is accustomed to this approach to doing business...

State and state-guaranteed debt of Ukraine over the past five years, billion dollars

Indicator	31.12. 2019	31.12. 2020	31.12. 2021	31.12. 2022	31.12. 2023	31.12. 2024
The total amount of state and state-guaranteed debt	84,37	90,25	97,96	111,45	145,32	166,06
Domestic debt	35,02	35,39	38,95	38,00	41,80	44,32
External debt	39,34	44,51	47,66	63,59	94,79	114,88
1. Debt on loans received from international financial institutions	12,34	15,68	16,98	30,09	59,31	82,83
The Nordic Green Bank (NEFCO)	0,00	0,00	0,00	0,00	0,01	0,01
The Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB)	0,00	0,00	0,00	0,00	0,00	0,12
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)	0,51	0,48	0,39	0,26	0,19	0,10
The European Investment Bank (EIB)	0,78	0,95	1,02	2,68	3,03	2,95
The European Union (EU)	3,69	4,68	5,00	12,37	32,90	44,01
The International Development Association (IDA)	0,00	0,00	0,00	0,58	1,05	5,79
The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD)	4,90	5,29	6,16	7,72	12,00	16,18
The International Monetary Fund (IMF)	2,43	4,23	4,36	6,40	10,00	13,55
The Clean Technology Fund (CTF)	0,02	0,04	0,06	0,08	0,11	0,11
2.1. Debt on loans received from foreign governments (except for unsettled debts from governments of the aggressor and/or contested state)	1,02	0,95	0,89	4,39	6,32	7,63
The United Kingdom	0,00	0,00	0,02	0,02	0,02	0,02
Italy	0,00	0,00	0,00	0,21	0,22	0,21
Canada	0,15	0,00	0,00	1,83	3,68	5,08
Netherlands	0,00	0,00	0,00	0,21	0,22	0,21
The Federal Republic of Germany	0,27	0,32	0,29	0,59	0,62	0,59
Poland	0,01	0,01	0,04	0,05	0,10	0,10
The Republic of Korea (ROK)	0,00	0,00	0,00	0,00	0,00	0,10
The United States of America	0,00	0,00	0,00	0,00	0,00	0,00
France	0,02	0,03	0,04	0,48	0,50	0,47
Japan	0,56	0,58	0,50	1,00	0,95	0,85
2.2 Unsettled debt on loans received from the aggressor state's government bodies and/or that is being contested	0,61	0,61	0,61	0,61	0,61	0,61
The Russian Federation	0,61	0,61	0,61	0,61	0,61	0,61
3. Debt on loans received from foreign commercial banks and other foreign financial institutions	1,41	2,16	1,86	1,65	1,57	1,48
Cargill	0,28	0,61	0,74	0,69	0,72	0,68
Chase Manhattan Bank	0,00	0,00	0,00	0,00	0,00	0,00
Citibank Europe PLC	0,00	0,00	0,00	0,00	0,00	0,01
Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank	0,18	0,23	0,30	0,30	0,27	0,19
Deutsche Bank	0,95	1,31	0,83	0,66	0,57	0,43
National Westminster Bank PLC	0,00	0,00	0,00	0,00	0,00	0,17
4.1. Debt on issued securities (except for unsettled and/or contested)	19,27	20,35	19,91	19,66	19,76	15,22
4.2. Unsettled debt on issued securities and/or contested	3,00	3,00	3,00	3,00	3,00	3,00
Ukraine's External Government Bonds (UEGB) 2013	3,00	3,00	3,00	3,00	3,00	3,00
5. Indebtedness not assigned to other categories	1,70	1,77	4,42	4,20	4,23	4,12
The International Monetary Fund (IMF)	1,70	1,77	4,42	4,20	4,23	4,12