In a private meeting on Wednesday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky turned down a proposal from the Trump administration that offered U.S. support in exchange for half of Ukraine’s mineral resources, according to individuals familiar with the discussions. This unusual offer would have given the U.S. a 50% stake in all of Ukraine’s mineral wealth, including graphite, lithium, and uranium, as compensation for the past and future aid given to Ukraine in its conflict with Russia, according to two European officials. Other sources close to the situation indicate the offer also included claims on Ukrainian energy reserves.
Discussions are ongoing, as noted by a Ukrainian official who wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of the talks. The ambitious scope of the proposal highlights a growing divide between Kyiv and Washington. This gap pertains to ongoing U.S. support and a potential resolution to the conflict.
The proposal’s presentation coincided with the visit of U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, marking the first appearance of a Trump administration official in Ukraine. The Treasury Department has refrained from commenting on these negotiations.
After evaluating the proposal, Ukrainian officials planned to offer a counterproposal during Zelensky’s visit to the Munich Security Conference on Friday, where he met with Vice President JD Vance. It remains unclear whether this counterproposal was put forward.
During a press briefing in Munich on Saturday, Zelensky confirmed he had turned down a U.S. proposal, without detailing the terms. He noted, however, that the terms lacked security guarantees from the U.S., emphasizing a crucial point for Ukraine, especially in light of past agreements promising protection upon Ukraine’s relinquishing of nuclear weapons post-Cold War.
European diplomats have expressed concerns, characterizing the negotiation as reminiscent of colonial strategies, where weaker nations were exploited for their resources by more powerful countries.
Meanwhile, differences continue to emerge between the Trump administration and its European allies over plans to end the war. The offer reportedly involved more than just Ukraine’s mineral wealth; it also included oil and gas, and a sizable portion of revenues from resource extraction activities. Accepting this deal would significantly impact Ukraine’s budget, as funds from resource exploitation are heavily invested in defense efforts. In the previous year, Naftogaz, Ukraine’s state-run energy firm, reported half a billion dollars in profit.
The concept of trading Ukraine’s mineral wealth for U.S. assistance was initially developed last summer. President Zelensky hoped to appeal to Trump’s transaction-oriented mindset, recognizing the possibility of losing military and financial backing. Zelensky pitched this idea to Trump in a meeting in New York last September, which later received support from several influential political figures, including Senator Lindsey Graham.
Kyiv has always been clear that any access to its resources must come with substantial security guarantees from Washington. However, one Ukrainian official indicated that the recent proposal didn’t make such commitments, framing the offer as a deferred payment for prior support.
Ukraine is rich in mineral deposits, possessing titanium, lithium, uranium, oil, and natural gas, although some reserves lie in areas controlled by Russian forces. The challenge of attracting investment remains, hampered by regulatory hurdles and insider dealings prevalent in Ukrainian politics.
There’s a precedent for economic-security partnerships between Ukraine and the U.S., notably Trump’s 2017 deal for Pennsylvania coal, which helped secure military support for Ukraine while benefiting U.S. jobs.
Reflecting on these past agreements, Kostiantyn Yelisieiev, a former Ukrainian diplomat, remarked on the transactional nature of working with Trump, prioritizing interests over values. Yet, he voiced caution against the current proposal, warning it might cast the conflict as a struggle over resources, overshadowing democratic ideals and sovereignty. “This is about protecting democracies and defeating Putin,” he emphasized.
