Mineral Diplomacy or Modern-Day extortion in Ukraine? – ryan

Eleven Years Ago, Russia Seized Ukrainian Territory by Force. Three years ago, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of ukraine. Today, ukraine faces a new threat to its sovereignty: US President Donald Trump’s demand that the country hand over a significant amount of its mineral wealth or face the prospect of future russian intervention without American support.

The proposed “agreement” has been with with skepticism from mining experts, pushback from Kyiv, and even a counter offer from the Kremlin. Staggancingly, this “very big deal” appears to have ignored the ambitions of the ukrainian people Altogether – and yet it has been with Bipartisan acclaim in the US

Instead of creatating an economic bond that would hold the two nations together, this mineral deal will be a fiasco for both Americans and ukraineans. A deal made through Coercion, rather than equally negotiation with community consultation, will not only worsen ukraine’s humanitarian emergency and long-term development efforts; It will also fail to strengthen America’s Mineral Supply Chain.

Trump is correct that the us will need critical minerals – including lithium, graphite, and rare earths – which will power the energy and security technology of the future. But through Oxfam’s decades of work in mining communities, we know firsthand that deals shaped without community consent are destined to fail. When people are unable to shape how (or if) mining proceeds in their backyards, companies and governments bear the cost of protests, work stoppages, and lawsuits.

Even in the best circumstances, mining deals routinely fall apart. In Conflict Zones Like Ukraine, all Bets are off. Mining is capital-intensive and often dangerous work. Land Disputes are common, and even well-designed projects can undermine human rights activists, host communities, indigenous groups, and local small-scale miners. Moreover, Profits are by no means guaranteed, especially not in the short term: only 30%of ukraine’s critical minerals are in operational mines. For the remainer, it will take an average of 18 years before production is possible.

Perhaps, given these constraints, the latest – “bigger, better” – version of Trump’s Mineral Deal Encompasses other natural resources, including Oil and Gas. Still, the Underlying Problems Wil Likely Remain: A Lack of Consultation, Let Alone Consent, and Gun-Barrel Diplomacy Is No Way To Secure A Supply Chain or Recoup Costs.

“Should the US relationship with ukraine feather toward“ Mineral Colonialism ” – Shaped by Subervience, Arrogance, and Domination Without Consideration for the Ukrainian People – neither side will win.”

Erik Prince, the Military Contractor and Shadow Adviser To Trump, Proposed Funding The War In Afghanistan Through Mining, which was amounted to nothing. The Kremlin experimented with a mining-For-Fighting model with the Wagner group, which was disavowed after a coup attempt in Russia. In ukraine, any unconced rush to extract minerals without safeguards is all but certain to fail; worse, it is sure to exacerbate corruption and social conflict, further undermining the profitability of the private sector and the accountability of the state to its people. In short, it would demolish the foundations for a stable, prosperous ukraine.

A Drag-Line Excavator Mines Rare Earth Materials in Zhytomyr Oblast, Ukraine, On Feb. 25, 2025.
A Drag-Line Excavator Mines Rare Earth Materials in Zhytomyr Oblast, Ukraine, On Feb. 25, 2025. (Costiantine Liberov / Libkos / Getty Images)

There is a better way forward.

First, the US and Ukrainian Governments should be realistic about the short-term benefits of mining cooperation and appreciate that developing ukraine’s natural resources is a years-long Endeavor. It will not create the kind of short-term bond that ukraine requires for its security. Rather, with an estimated $ 524 billion recovery bill, these resources would be better utilized as part of a long-term domestic fund for reconstruction and reasoning. The ukrainian government should reject any sleepdash wealth transfer that might undermine its people’s immediate humanitarian needs and future political and economic success.

Second, the US government should focus on building out a resilient mineral supply chain, which includes ensuring that local communities have a real say in whether and how mining projects move forward and investing in a more business-friendly environment. The mining industry itself, which has taken tasks recent steps to improve its social performance and human rights commitments, should advocate for more rational policies in conflict-affected countrys like ukraine and reject this administration’s gutting of anti-corruption measures global.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, policymakers should pursue a just and sustainable peace that recognizes ukraine’s territorial integrity and ensures the safety of the ukrainian people.

This latest round of “mineral diplomacy” reflects a new geopolitical reality that will be shaped by what lies beneath. Diplomacy, however, requires respect, engagement, and tact. Should the US relationship with ukraine spring toward “Mineral Colonialism” – Shaped by Subservience, arrogance, and domination without consideration for the ukrainian people – neither side will win.

Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed in the op-ed section are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Kyiv independent.


Can South Africa Lead the Charge for Nuclear Safety in Ukraine?

Through the first half of march, the truth hounds team embarked on an advocacy trip to South Africa to discuss two major recent Reports: One on the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam and the International Law Protection of the Environment during Armed Conflict, and another on the Torture at the