Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘minerals-deal’

Trump’s Ukraine Minerals Deal 2.0 Capitulation

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged , , , on May 9, 2025| Leave a Comment »

Last week the Trump administration and Ukraine finally signed a deal on sharing Ukraine mineral rights. But a closer consideration of the published document shows this Mineral Deal 2.0 is fundamentally different from the 1.0 deal Trump proposed in February. One might more accurately call it a Trump capitulation.

In March Trump’s initial 1.0 deal was supposed to be signed in the White House with Ukraine’s president Zelensky. That meeting notoriously blew up with all the world watching in ascerbic verbal exchanges between Zelensky, Vice President JD Vance and Trump. Zelensky then left the meeting and immediately departed the US, flying directly to a meeting with British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, who greeted him publicly with open arms and hugs.

In the White House meeting all sides were scheduled to announce the deal. But upon arrival Zelensky informed Trump he couldn’t agree. So the parties were in an agitated mood even before the meeting. Zelensky made a nasty comment in Ukrainian to Vance and it went downhill from there.

The essence of the March ‘Minerals Deal 1.0’s called for Ukraine to agree to using revenues from the exploitation its minerals would to repay the US for past military and economic aid to Ukraine. Trump estimated that amount at $350 billion. Other sources estimate around $100 billion. The actual amount no doubt somewhere in between. In any case no small amount of financial assistance.

Zelensky has always argued any such deal must be accompanied by a formal US security agreement with Ukraine. That was a precondition from the very beginning last October 2024 when Zelensky himself proposed a minerals sharing deal. However, the US has never linked a security agreement to the deal. The lack of a security clause in the agreement lay behind Zelensky’s reneging on the deal at the last moment when he arrived in the US for the White House meeting.

The Minerals Deal 2.0 signed last week shares little with Trump’s prior 1.0 offer. The 2.0, for example, explicitly excludes any use of the revenues from joint minerals exploitation to repay the US for back aid given Ukraine with no strings attached by the Biden administration.

This fact of no repayment for prior aid renders the 2.0 deal fundamentally different from Trump’s original proposal. And there’s more that differentiates the two deals.

Last week’s signed 2.0 deal creates an Investment Fund into which revenues from the exploitation of Ukraine minerals would be deposited. The Investment Fund also provides for the US and Ukraine to bear costs of minerals extraction 50-50. However, while costs are shared 50-50 it says nothing about revenue sharing 50-50. In fact, reportedly the 2.0 deal is silent about how revenues will be shared, or if at all.

What the Investment Fund document does say about revenues is that all proceeds from the development and exploitation of Ukraine’s minerals will be deposited back into the Investment Fund in toto for the first ten years after the Fund is created. So all the revenues goes back into Ukraine; no revenues return to the US for repayment or, indeed, apparently for any reason.

One has to ask why has Trump completely capitulated, dropping his prior main demand for revenues compensating the US for back aid?

The language of the Investment Fund further allows either party, US or Ukraine, to deposit additional monies, apart from the revenues from the development of the minerals, into the Fund. Moreover—and here’s a most interesting provision—Ukraine has interpreted this additional contribution to the Fund to mean the US may contribute to the fund in the form of more weapons shipments to Ukraine. In other words, the value of the weapons would go to the US share of the 50-50 cost commitment. In addition, the US media has reported the 2.0 Deal includes the right of Ukraine to use its share of the Fund revenues to purchase US weapons.

In other words, this language suggests the Fund is intended to function as a back door to renewed US weapons shipments to Ukraine—thus reversing Trump’s past publicly declaration he would not agree to any more shipments of weapons to Ukraine.

Not coincidentally, within days of the deal signing the US media has reported that the US has resumed issuing licenses for future weapons shipment to Ukraine. And that the US will provide supplies for the F-16 jets from Denmark given to Ukraine. Then there’s the recent revelation that the US has arranged for Israel and Germany to send Ukraine two US Patriot Missile systems? That does not include the missiles themselves. Only the US can provide that and likely will soon.

Another curious feature is the Minerals 2.0 capitulation agreement is only one of the three documents involved in the agreement has been published. That’s the Investment Fund. So where are the other two? What do they say? And why are the media and politicians not demanding the other two ‘silent’ documents be published? Was perhaps more conceded by Trump that he does not want revealed?

It’s curious that all these terms of the Minerals deal quickly fell in place after Trump’s meeting with Zelensky at the Vatican last week as both attended the funeral of Pope Francis. A convenient photo op was published and distributed around the world showing Trump and Zelensky sitting on chairs face to face in the Vatican. Thereafter, within 24 hours the Minerals deal is announced!

Does anyone think this timing was mere coincidence? Or believe the media’s spin that Zelensky was able to button-hole Trump at the funeral at the last moment, get a meeting, and convince Trump to sign the Minerals deal with all the terms specifically benefiting Ukraine—i.e. no revenues repaying the US for past aid, cost sharing but no revenues sharing for any reason, a backdoor to future US weapons shipment, two of the three documents unpublished, and who knows what else?

Is the Investment Fund really about financing future joint development of Ukraine minerals and Ukraine economy’s redevelopment? Or is it a vehicle for enabling Ukraine to buy more US weapons?

In any event, Minerals Deal 2.0 has little resemblance to Trump’s original Minerals Deal 1.0. What it does resemble, however, is a major capitulation by Trump to Ukraine and Zelensky.

The question is why the capitulation to Zelensky and Ukraine? There are several possible explanations floating around. Here’s a couple.

First, some say it’s just another Trump big grift. That he’s creating a Fund he’ll somehow find a way to personally exploit. I don’t believe so. Those who suggest that must show how he intends to get at a Fund that appears locked up for ten years in Ukraine’s favor.

Another explanation is that the real language governing the deal is contained in the two documents that haven’t been made public. The other two docs are more demanding of Ukraine and pro-US. But that’s pure conjecture. One would have to see what the other documents actually say and it’s not likely the contents will appear any time soon.

Another is that the US neocons, Europeans, and Zelensky all ganged up on Trump in Rome at the funeral and, as appears so often in the case of Trump, got to him last and turned him around. That’s plausible. Trump is notorious for making decisions based on the latest advocates who get his ear.

This writer believes, however, that the Minerals 2.0 deal is a way for Trump to show some progress on the question of Ukraine and the war. Trump and his team have dedicated no small effort to pushing his ‘Kellogg Plan’ as the basis for a ceasefire and for commencing negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. The Kellogg Plan collapsed just days before the signing of Minerals Deal 2.0. And there’s no indication it will ever be resurrected. That collapse has to have had some influence on Trump’s capitulating on the Minerals deal.

The Kellogg Plan collapsed mostly because Zelensky refuses to talk until Russia unconditionally ceases fire, during which Zelensky retains the right to re-equip, re-store military personnel, and re-position military units as he pleases. Russia’s position is it will negotiate anytime and place but ceasefire is a subject of discussion after negotiations begin. Europe’s leadership agrees completely with the Zelensky position on the matter of ceasefire.

Other positions of the two parties, Ukraine and Russia, put them even further apart as well: Zelensky demands Russia give up all territories occupied before negotiations; Russia declares the four regions and Crimea are now part of Russia and by its constitution cannot negotiate giving away any part of the country. In addition, Russia demands Ukraine demilitarize and declare it won’t join NATO; Zelensky rejects either notion as not a subject for negotiation.

In other words, Trump’s Kellogg Plan was fundamentally naïve as a basis for any ceasefire or negotiations. It’s not surprising it collapsed. That Trump pushed it so long suggests he’s received bad advice or that the plan was always just a cover for other negotiations.

The collapse of the Kellogg Plan made Trump appear as if he was now at a ‘dead end’ in his efforts to mediate the war and unable to deliver on his campaign promise to end the war in 24 hours by getting the parties together and, to borrow a phrase, ‘making both sides an offer they couldn’t refuse’. The plan collapse reveals the US no longer has the level of influence it once did at the height of its imperial power at the start of the 21st century. The world has moved on. The US is relatively weaker; the rest of the world relatively stronger. Trump appeared weak with the collapse of the Kellogg Plan.

The Minerals 2.0 deal is therefore a substitute event, to enable Trump to show events are not at a standstill. He has not yet failed in his campaign promise. Not all is at fundamental impasse.

Trump’s alternatives at this point is either to follow the advice of his neocon advisers and provide Ukraine with more weapons and threaten the Russians that more US actions are forthcoming if they don’t come to the negotiating table. But this is essentially the Biden plan which produced no results for the prior three years. It is also the US neocons’ position real Plan A. They may have gone along with the Kellogg Plan B knowing full well it would collapse.

Trump’s other choice is to follow the advice of others like Witkoff and Vance in his administration to cut Ukraine loose and end all current US military assistance. Let events evolve on the ground for the next six months and intervene again later this year when one or both parties, Ukraine and/or Russia, are more amenable to a compromise.

Trump now appears drifting in the direction of the neocons’ plan to resurrect Plan A somehow and away from the opposing view that the only choice is to cut losses and let the Europeans have their war in Ukraine if they want.

As this article is written, reports are that Trump now wants a direct face to face meeting in May with Putin in Saudi Arabia. This suggests either he’s not too confident he’s directly getting the facts from his neocon advisers; or perhaps he thinks he can hammer out a deal over the table with Putin—as if he were concluding some kind of corporate acquisition where both sides ‘horse trade’ the main remaining unresolved issues on the table at the 11thhour to seal a deal.

If the latter, he’ll have some difficulty convincing the Russians he’s not just another western politician who makes promises, even signs documents, on which he then reneges—just as occurred in 2015 with the Minsk II agreement and again in Istanbul in 2022 when the war could have ended were it not for European NATO intervention convincing Zelensky to continue the conflict.

by Dr. Jack Rasmus

copyright 2025

Read Full Post »

Trump’s Ukraine Minerals Deal 2.0 Capitulation

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged , , , , , on May 6, 2025| Leave a Comment »

Trump’s Ukraine Minerals Deal 2.0 Capitulation

By

Dr. Jack Rasmus

Last week the Trump administration and Ukraine finally signed a deal on sharing Ukraine mineral rights. But a closer consideration of the published document shows this Mineral Deal 2.0 is fundamentally different from the 1.0 deal Trump proposed in February. One might more accurately call it a Trump capitulation.

In March Trump’s initial 1.0 deal was supposed to be signed in the White House with Ukraine’s president Zelensky. That meeting notoriously blew up with all the world watching in ascerbic verbal exchanges between Zelensky, Vice President JD Vance and Trump.  Zelensky then left the meeting and immediately departed the US, flying directly to a meeting with British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, who greeted him publicly with open arms and hugs.

In the White House meeting all sides were scheduled to announce the deal. But upon arrival Zelensky informed Trump he couldn’t agree. So the parties were in an agitated mood even before the meeting. Zelensky made a nasty comment in Ukrainian to Vance and it went downhill from there.

The essence of the March ‘Minerals Deal 1.0’s called for Ukraine to agree to using revenues from the exploitation its  minerals would to repay the US for past military and economic aid to Ukraine. Trump estimated that amount at $350 billion. Other sources estimate around $100 billion. The actual amount no doubt somewhere in between. In any case no small amount of financial assistance.

Zelensky has always argued any such deal must be accompanied by a formal US security agreement with Ukraine. That was a precondition from the very beginning last October 2024 when Zelensky himself proposed a minerals sharing deal. However, the US has never linked a security agreement to the deal. The lack of a security clause in the agreement lay behind Zelensky’s reneging on the deal at the last moment when he arrived in the US for the White House meeting.

The Minerals Deal 2.0 signed last week shares little with Trump’s prior 1.0 offer. The 2.0, for example, explicitly excludes any use of the revenues from joint minerals exploitation to repay the US for back aid given Ukraine with no strings attached by the Biden administration.

This fact of no repayment for prior aid renders the 2.0 deal fundamentally different from Trump’s original proposal. And there’s more that differentiates the two deals.

Last week’s signed 2.0 deal creates an Investment Fund into which revenues from the exploitation of Ukraine minerals would be deposited.  The Investment Fund also provides for the US and Ukraine to bear costs of minerals extraction 50%-50.  However, while costs are shared 50-50 it says nothing about revenue sharing 50-50. In fact, reportedly the 2.0 deal is silent about how revenues will be shared, or if at all.

What the Investment Fund document does say about revenues is that all proceeds from the development and exploitation of Ukraine’s minerals will be deposited back into the Investment Fund in toto for the first ten years after the Fund is created. So all the revenues goes back into Ukraine; no revenues return to the US for repayment or, indeed, apparently for any reason.

One has to ask why has Trump completely capitulated, dropping his prior main demand for revenues compensating the US for back aid?

The language of the Investment Fund further allows either party, US or Ukraine, to deposit additional monies, apart from the revenues from the development of the minerals, into the Fund. Moreover—and here’s a most interesting provision—Ukraine has interpreted this additional contribution to the Fund to mean the US may contribute to the fund in the form of more weapons shipments to Ukraine. In other words, the value of the weapons would go to the US share of the 50-50 cost commitment.  In addition, the US media has reported the 2.0 Deal includes the right of Ukraine to use its share of the Fund revenues to purchase US weapons.

In other words, this language suggests the Fund is intended to function as a back door to renewed US weapons shipments to Ukraine—thus reversing Trump’s past publicly declaration he would not agree to any more shipments of weapons to Ukraine.

Not coincidentally, within days of the deal signing the US media has reported that the US has  resumed issuing licenses for future weapons shipment to Ukraine. And that the US will provide supplies for the F-16 jets from Denmark given to Ukraine. Then there’s the recent revelation that the US has arranged for Israel and Germany to send Ukraine two US Patriot Missile systems? That does not include the missiles themselves. Only the US can provide that and likely will soon.

Another curious feature is the Minerals 2.0 capitulation agreement is only one of the three documents involved in the agreement has been published. That’s the Investment Fund. So where are the other two? What do they say? And why are the media and politicians not demanding the other two ‘silent’ documents be published?  Was perhaps more conceded by Trump that he does not want revealed?

It’s curious that all these terms of the Minerals deal quickly fell in place after Trump’s meeting with Zelensky at the Vatican last week as both attended the funeral of Pope Francis. A convenient photo op was published and distributed around the world showing Trump and Zelensky sitting on chairs face to face in the Vatican. Thereafter, within 24 hours the Minerals deal is announced! 

Does anyone think this timing was mere coincidence? Or believe the media’s spin that Zelensky was able to button-hole Trump at the funeral at the last moment, get a meeting, and convince Trump to sign the Minerals deal with all the terms specifically benefiting Ukraine—i.e. no revenues repaying the US for past aid, cost sharing but no revenues sharing for any reason, a backdoor to future US weapons shipment, two of the three documents unpublished, and who knows what else?

Is the Investment Fund really about financing future joint development of Ukraine minerals and Ukraine economy’s redevelopment? Or is it a vehicle for enabling Ukraine to buy more US weapons?

In any event, Minerals Deal 2.0 has little resemblance to Trump’s original Minerals Deal 1.0. What it does resemble, however, is a major capitulation by Trump to Ukraine and Zelensky.

The question is why the capitulation to Zelensky and Ukraine? There are several possible explanations floating around. Here’s a couple.

First, some say it’s just another Trump big grift. That he’s creating a Fund he’ll somehow find a way to personally exploit.  I don’t believe so. Those who suggest that must show how he intends to get at a Fund that appears locked up for ten years in Ukraine’s favor.

Another explanation is that the real language governing the deal is contained in the two documents that haven’t been made public. The other two docs are more demanding of Ukraine and pro-US.  But that’s pure conjecture. One would have to see what the other documents actually say and it’s not likely the contents will appear any time soon.

Another is that the US neocons, Europeans, and Zelensky all ganged up on Trump in Rome at the funeral and, as appears so often in the case of Trump, got to him last and turned him around. That’s plausible. Trump is notorious for making decisions based on the latest advocates who get his ear.

This writer believes, however, that the Minerals 2.0 deal is a way for Trump to show some progress on the question of Ukraine and the war.  Trump and his team have dedicated no small  effort to pushing his ‘Kellogg Plan’ as the basis for a ceasefire and for commencing negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. The Kellogg Plan collapsed just days before the signing of Minerals Deal 2.0.  And there’s no indication it will ever be resurrected. That collapse has to have had some influence on Trump’s capitulating on the Minerals deal.

The Kellogg Plan collapsed mostly because Zelensky refuses to talk until Russia unconditionally ceases fire, during which Zelensky retains the right to re-equip, re-store military personnel, and re-position military units as he pleases. Russia’s position is it will negotiate anytime and place but ceasefire is a subject of discussion after negotiations begin. Europe’s leadership agrees completely with the Zelensky position on the matter of ceasefire.

Other positions of the two parties, Ukraine and Russia, put them even further apart as well: Zelensky demands Russia give up all territories occupied before negotiations; Russia declares the four regions and Crimea are now part of Russia and by its constitution cannot negotiate giving away any part of the country. In addition, Russia demands Ukraine demilitarize and declare it won’t join NATO; Zelensky rejects either notion as not a subject for negotiation.

In other words, Trump’s Kellogg Plan was fundamentally naïve as a basis for any ceasefire or negotiations. It’s not surprising it collapsed. That Trump pushed it so long suggests he’s received bad advice or that the plan was always just a cover for other negotiations.

The collapse of the Kellogg Plan made Trump appear as if he was now at a ‘dead end’ in his efforts to mediate the war and unable to deliver on his campaign promise to end the war in 24 hours by getting the parties together and, to borrow a phrase, ‘making both sides an offer they couldn’t refuse’.  The plan collapse reveals the US no longer has the level of influence it once did at the height of its imperial power at the start of the 21st century. The world has moved on. The US is relatively weaker; the rest of the world relatively stronger.  Trump appeared weak with the collapse of the Kellogg Plan.

The Minerals 2.0 deal is therefore a substitute event, to enable Trump to show events are not at a standstill. He has not yet failed in his campaign promise. Not all is at fundamental impasse.

Trump’s alternatives at this point is either to follow the advice of his neocon advisers and provide Ukraine with more weapons and threaten the Russians that more US actions are forthcoming if they don’t come to the negotiating table. But this is essentially the Biden plan which produced no results for the prior three years.  It is also the US neocons’ position real Plan A. They may have gone along with the Kellogg Plan B knowing full well it would collapse.

Trump’s other choice is to follow the advice of others like Witkoff and Vance in his administration to cut Ukraine loose and end all current US military assistance.  Let events evolve on the ground for the next six months and intervene again later this year when one or both parties, Ukraine and/or Russia, are more amenable to a compromise.

Trump now appears drifting in the direction of the neocons’ plan to resurrect Plan A somehow and away from the opposing view that the only choice is to cut losses and let the Europeans have their war in Ukraine if they want.

As this article is written, reports are that Trump now wants a direct face to face meeting in May with Putin in Saudi Arabia in May.  This suggests either he’s not too confident he’s directly getting the facts from his neocon advisers; or perhaps he thinks he can hammer out a deal over the table with Putin—as if he were concluding some kind of corporate acquisition where both sides ‘horse trade’ the main remaining unresolved issues on the table at the 11th hour to seal a deal.

If the latter, he’ll have some difficulty convincing the Russians he’s not just another western politician who makes promises, even signs documents, on which he then reneges—just as occurred in 2015 with the Minsk II agreement and again in Istanbul in 2022 when the war could have ended were it not for European NATO intervention convincing Zelensky to continue the conflict.

Jack Rasmus

May 4, 2025

Read Full Post »

The Real Trump-Zelensky Minerals Deal

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged , , , , , on February 26, 2025| 1 Comment »

After weeks of on again off again, US mainstream media headlines today, February 26, 2025 announce that Trump and Ukraine’s president Zelensky—after weeks of ‘tit for tat’ mutual accusations–have reportedly reached a deal for Ukraine to pay the US from Ukraine’s minerals wealth.

The deal details remain opaque, however. It’s not clear if the amount to be repaid is still $500 billion. Nor is it clear whether the agreement will repay past US aid to Ukraine or be used to help rebuild Ukraine after the war’s end.

Furthermore, the mainstream media provides no details as to ‘who else benefits’ from the deal. Will the money go back into the US Treasury, into a Ukraine post war rebuilding…or to benefit private interests? 

Typical of US mainstream media’s reporting of events is today’s Wall St. Journal headline announcing a pact was reached. The only details reported, however, is that Ukraine “would pay some proceeds from future mineral resource development into a fund” and that “existing oil and gas production would be exempt from the deal”.  More revealing is the reference that “the size of the U.S.’s stake in the fund and joint ownership deals will be hashed out in future agreements.”

In short, it all looks like a PR compromise between Trump and Zelensky to lower the accusations and public feuding between them that had been rising in intensity in recent weeks. Both Trump and Zelensky make token concessions to make it appear as if a deal exists and leave the critical details unclear. 

Both sides thus now kicked down the road, to be flushed out in detail only after war’s end. Most likely that end will occur sometime in the second half of 2025—at least with regard to US active participation in the war.  For there are signs the US/NATO proxy war with Russia in Ukraine may soon end but the conflict morph into a Europe/NATO proxy war.

Zelensky’s Original Offer

The idea of money from Ukraine’s mineral wealth in exchange for US aid is a Zelensky proposal raised last fall when the Biden administration was still in power and it was clear the US Congress would not pass further legislation after its $61 billion aid package enacted early last summer. Raising the idea of minerals wealth in exchange for more aid last fall was thus a Zelensky effort to restart the flow of US funds to Ukraine.

Embedded in the running dispute in recent weeks by Trump and Zelensky over whether, how much and in what form Ukraine would share its mineral wealth with the US is their parallel running disagreement over how much aid the US has actually given Ukraine the past three years.

Trump has said the Biden administration gave Ukraine $350 billion with no strings attached, while Europe provided only $150 billion in the form of loans to be repaid. Thus Trump’s reference to the $500 billion is in effect a redefinition of Biden’s ‘no strings attached’ aid, converting Biden’s grant into a loan to be repaid, much like the Europeans’ terms of aid. Presumably the $500 billion would cover repayment of the $350 billion given Ukraine thus far by the US, with perhaps $150 billion more left over for rebuilding Ukraine post war.

Zelensky responded Ukraine only actually received $70 billion in US aid since 2022 and admitted he could not account for another $100 billion. He further emphasized US aid was a grant not a loan and Ukraine would not repay any of it.  Zelensky thus clarifies he means minerals for more future weapons and funding from US not as repayment for past US aid. He also has clarified the form of wealth transfer will not assume a 50% US sharing nor US right to purchase 50% of the Ukraine assets to ensure 50% sharing. The mechanism—as well as the amount–is left to future details.

Also in dispute is what any of the wealth sharing funds would be used for. Trump has been unclear whether the sharing would reimburse US for past aid as well as to help rebuild Ukraine after a settlement. Zelensky’s position is all the sharing would be redirected back into rebuilding Ukraine.

In short, the agreement announced today amounts to minimal tokenism by both parties. Again suggesting it’s for media consumption to appear as if there’s a deal of substance and to provide a means for both Trump and Zelensky to lower the heat of mutual accusations and incriminations.

Trump’s Counter Offer

Trump has been saying all along that since Zelensky proposed the $500 billion figure in principle last fall he first raised the idea inviting negotiations. It was Zelensky’s number. Trump has explained he has only agreed to Zelensky’s number and countered with some details as to how the $500 billion might be repaid: specifically he proposed the US be given a 50% claim on all proceeds from the sale of all Ukraine minerals plus the US right to acquire Ukrainian minerals companies to ensure payment.

Embedded in their running dispute the past few weeks is differences over how much the US has actually given in aid to Ukraine since the war began in 2022. The Wall St. Journal article today—and the US mainstream media in general the past two weeks–largely agrees with Zelensky’s claim Ukraine received only “$70 billion in military aid.”  However, that estimate conveniently ignores that the Biden administration passed legislation last summer that alone provided $61 billion in military aid, to which has been added a still undetermined further amount by the Biden administration in the weeks after the US November election.  Moreover the $70 billion is an estimate for military aid not other forms of aid the US has provided the past three years.

The true amount of US aid to Ukraine—military as well as to pay the salaries of the Ukraine government the past three years—is undoubtedly closer to the $350 billion than the $70 billion. Zelensky himself has previously stated the cost of paying Ukraine government salaries and employee pensions is $8 billion a month. That total for three years is close to $300 billion. Much of US aid to Ukraine since February 2022 has therefore been to finance the Ukraine government, not just to provide military aid. In total it’s likely between $300 and $400 billion.

Apart from the uncertainty as to what actually is the dollar amount of the just announced deal, the agreement reported by the Wall St. Journal today includes no guarantee of US security for Ukraine. This precondition of US security in exchange for sharing Ukraine’s mineral wealth has consistently been a major sticking point in Trump-Zelensky negotiations all along.  Zelensky’s position has been a guarantee of US security is always a quid pro quo for any wealth sharing.

In short, the agreement reported today is a PR deal primarily for public media consumption. Zelensky has made a token concession in principle of only “some proceeds” (not $500 billion) and that would not include revenues from “existing oil and gas production”.  In return Trump has made a token concession of ‘some amount’ of mineral wealth sharing according to some arrangement, both of which are to be determined in some ‘future agreement’.

All the exchanges and announcements associated with the mineral wealth exchange for US support in some form is an exercise in ‘putting the cart before the horse’ as the saying goes. A deal on wealth sharing for whatever reason cannot predate a negotiated settlement to the war itself. It can only be a part of a settlement that is still fundamentally elusive. Especially if the US ends its proxy war with Russia and cuts a separate deal with Russia, and Europe picks up the tab of the cost of continuing the war and providing weapons to Ukraine

Who Benefits?

The US mainstream media’s narrative is the $500 billion (or whatever the eventual amount) is about funds to rebuild Ukraine after the war’s end.  But is that an adequate explanation for ‘who benefits’ from the funds from the minerals production and sale?  What is the deal really about? Who are the parties that will eventually benefit from whatever wealth sharing results?

What’s really behind the $500 billion minerals deal? 

The Europeans clearly out negotiated Biden by providing Ukraine with $150 billion in loans not grants, to be repaid somehow at a later date. They are also sitting on $260 billion in Russian frozen assets in EU banks. And they just announced another $20 billion ‘bridge loan’ to Ukraine to enable it to continue the war into the summer. They’ve been suggesting, and it is obvious they plan, to use the $260 billion frozen assets to cover the cost of rebuilding Ukraine.

 And this is the key point: the rebuilding will involve projects carried out by European companies and funded by European banks and investors, to be paid from the $260 billion. Thus the EU private sector will ultimately benefit the most from the rebuilding.

Biden left the US without such a solution by giving the money away to Ukraine with ‘no strings attached’.  Thus Trump creating a $500 billion fund should be understood as analog to Europe’s $260 billion.  While some of the $500 billion (or part thereof) will no doubt be to repay the US Treasury, is likely most will be allocated to compensate US companies, now deeply entrenched in Ukraine since 2015 for rebuilding projects conducted by US companies and financed by US banks.  US companies’ exit costs and future losses may also be reimbursed from the funds

Any who doubt how deeply entrenched US business interests are today in Ukraine should just refer to the local business chambers of commerce throughout the major cities of Ukraine. They will find hundreds of subsidiaries of US corporations, let alone Ukraine businesses now indirectly owned by western banks and investors. The penetration of US capital into Ukraine has been going on for more than a decade, since 2014 when US neocon, Victoria Nuland, was made ‘economic czar’ for Ukraine by its parliament that year. A flood of US capital and companies followed. Trump’s $500 billion fund is destined to address their interests as well as assist & subsidize new US capital in the rebuilding of Ukraine.

In other words, all the debate and talk in Europe about what to do with Russia’s $260 billion frozen assets and the Trump $500 billion proposal to get Ukraine to share its mineral wealth is really about how the spoils of war get distributed and to whose interests—i.e. Europe’s, the USA’s and their respective business interests.

Moreover, Trump plans to extend the wealth transfer from those areas of Ukraine now part of Russia in the east. Zelensky’s Ukraine cannot ensure any wealth sharing from those regions lost to Russia. But Trump striking a deal with Russia for US companies to participate in the reconstruction in east Ukraine’s four provinces now part of Russia is a further phase of the deal to exploit the reconstruction of Ukraine. Less directly as well, any agreements with Russia over terms of trade with Russia in general.  It’s not coincidental that Putin has publicly suggested the door would once again open to US capital investment in Russia after a deal.

There’s no doubt both Trump’s $500 billion and Europe’s $260 billion will eventually be part of any negotiated settlement to the war. Neither deal can be finalized until it is clear there is some final settlement, since how much dollars and Euros, in what form of investment, and for whose benefit cannot be decided until the war on the ground is over. And that’s yet to be determined although the endgame in military terms is drawing near.

However, military force is just an extension of political strategies and interests and the latter are still in flux. But a sure sign the political endgame is also approaching is when the economic interests behind the political forces begin to be discussed and clarified. And that’s what the minerals sharing deal is about, as well as the maneuvering of US and Europeans with regard to negotiations. 

The wolves are beginning to devour the carcass and are snapping and growling at each other to determine who gets to eat first and how much.

By the minerals deal and by economic negotiations with Russia underway, the USA plans to eat its full share one way or another. The Europeans can have a bite as well, but must wait their turn. As the ‘alpha’  wolf, the US will take the biggest bite out of Ukraine and if Europe doesn’t like it they can go find another prey.

Dr. Jack Rasmus

February 26, 2025

Read Full Post »