Unique approach: foreign experts evaluate the Agreement on Ukrainian minerals
28 February 12:56
The framework agreement, which defines the US access to Ukraine’s natural resource revenues in exchange for security guarantees, contains legal gaps that must be filled in future negotiations. Reuters cites several experts as saying this, according to
The draft agreement, which was reviewed by the agency, provides for the creation of a joint “Reconstruction Investment Fund” managed by the United States and Ukraine. It contains reassuring words, but the United States does not offer Kyiv the security guarantees it seeks.
As you know, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Fox Business today that a framework agreement on minerals between Ukraine and the United States is ready to be signed.
Many general provisions, few specifics
The agreement provides for the Ukrainian government to contribute 50% of the future monetization of any state-owned natural resources to a fund. But it does not specify the amount, timing, or details on how the fund will be managed.
This is not surprising, and is what one would expect from a framework agreement, said Brian McGarry, an associate professor of international law at Leiden University who has advised developing countries in negotiating similar agreements.
“It creates obligations to cooperate, but it doesn’t have any specific defense obligations. This is exactly what we see in this agreement. The U.S. has not given specific guarantees,” McGarry said.
One diplomatic source, who wished to remain anonymous to discuss sensitive matters, said the document “seems to be a pretty good deal for both sides.”
Despite the lack of security guarantees, the terms outlined in the framework agreement may come as a relief to Ukraine, as Trump has dropped his initial demand for $500 billion in compensation for military support already provided.
The document states that the funds will be reinvested “to promote Ukraine’s security and prosperity,” and this will be worked out in a fund agreement that will address future financial distributions.
The U.S. government “will maintain a long-term financial commitment to the development of a stable and economically prosperous Ukraine,” the document says, but does not specify what that means.
One element that caught the eye of Brian McGarry, an associate professor of international law at Leiden University, is that the draft explicitly states that in future negotiations on the fund, Ukraine and the United States “seek to avoid conflicts with Ukraine’s commitments” on its path to EU membership.
“At least in principle, there is interesting political support for this process,” he said, amid Washington’s increasingly antagonistic stance toward the EU.
The framework agreement makes no reference to a dispute resolution mechanism, and Washington’s share of the future fund also remains open for discussion, said Tim Meyer, a professor of international law at Duke University.
“The agreement demonstrates some uncertainty on the part of the United States as to whether the government has the authority to participate in the fund that is envisioned in the agreement,” he said, adding that a finalized fund agreement would likely require congressional approval.
Guillermo Christensen, an expert on national security and international trade at the US law firm K&L Gates, summarized by emphasizing that the parties offer a “unique and unprecedented approach” that is not found in other national agreements.
Reuters reminds that Ukraine has deposits of 22 out of 34 minerals identified by the EU as critical, including industrial and construction materials, ferroalloys, precious and non-ferrous metals, and some rare earth elements.
Insisting on the adoption of the Agreement, Donald Trump, according to the agency, had a dual purpose: to compensate for Washington’s financial and military support for Ukraine and to limit the US dependence on Chinese resources.
As you know, China, which Trump threatened with a trade war, is the world’s largest producer of rare earth elements used to make magnets in electric vehicles, weapons, and electronics.
As a reminder, The Independent has assessed which regions of Ukraine have the largest deposits of rare earth metals and what is wrong with them.
For example, the main titanium deposits are located in Zhytomyr, Kirovohrad, Dnipro, and partially in Kyiv regions. Ukraine has also explored four lithium ore deposits. Two of them are located in Kirovohrad region, and the rest are in Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia regions. There are 12 silicate-nickel deposits in Kirovohrad and Dnipro regions. Three uranium deposits are located in Dnipropetrovska and Kirovohradska regions.
The Independent also states that access to some of these deposits is restricted due to the hostilities on the territory of Ukraine, which makes it difficult to fully develop and exploit them.
