After long debates and multiple negotiations, the United States and Ukraine have signed an agreement for the exploration of Ukraine’s rare earth minerals. This deal is often interpreted as a result of pressure having been put on the Kiev authorities by Washington to compensate for the money spent in military and economic assistance to defend against Russian aggression. The deal, signed on April 30, 2025, offers the United States preferential access to new mineral resource developments in Ukraine and is intended to bring “equal benefits” to both countries. Some experts point to the benefits and drawbacks for both sides, while others see it as a potential sustainable model for post-conflict economic reconstruction and even a future model for international development. Could this agreement set a precedent for future geopolitical strategies, or might it contribute to shifting the conflict’s trajectory in Ukraine’s favor? Check out some opinions below.
Key Takeaways:
- The U.S.- Ukraine minerals deal establishes a Reconstruction Investment Fund through which the U.S. has promised to increase investment – accelerating Ukraine’s economic growth and eventual post-war reconstruction – in exchange for mineral access.
- According to experts, resource-based investment agreements can serve as a sustainable model for economic development, whether post-conflict or not, if the terms ensure that the people of the country will benefit and if the targeted country has the capacity, transparency, and political will to enforce them.
- However, resource-based investment agreements have played a considerable role in modern post-war contexts with questionable results.
- While the security and investment agreements between the U.S. and Ukraine may indicate to Russia that the current U.S. administration is dedicated to a peace process, they do not necessarily contribute to bringing the war to a conclusion.
- However, like any post-conflict investment deal, it could also generate misunderstanding and breed resentment as a result of unmet expectations, leading to an increasingly asymmetric, exploitative relationship.
DevelopmentAid: Can the U.S. – Ukraine minerals deal become a sustainable model for post-conflict economic reconstruction and international development?
“Central to post-conflict reconstruction is the enhancement of peace and security, alongside the attainment of sustainable socioeconomic development. Nevertheless, this process does not inherently resolve the fundamental causes of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, nor does it assure the end of hostilities that may resurface even following a peace accord. To facilitate Ukraine’s sustainable development and economic recovery, it is essential to be equipped to tackle the underlying factors of the conflict that are intricately linked to competing geostrategic interests. To maintain a resource-based investment initiative in a post-conflict setting, such as the U.S.-Ukraine minerals agreement, it is essential to ensure that the outcomes promote socially inclusive development policies and fulfil the performance criteria. This may involve stipulations for technology transfer, requirements for research and development, collaborative venture operations, the expropriation of private companies, and the elevation of state-owned enterprises as the primary participants. The recent agreement established between the United States and Ukraine, signed on April 30 2025, seems to offer more advantages to Ukraine compared to earlier iterations of the contract. Ukraine will assume complete responsibility for its natural resources and infrastructure, including decisions regarding extraction. The ‘Investment Fund’ will be managed collaboratively by both nations on an equal partnership basis. A notable aspect of the agreement, which still requires further technical details, is that during the initial 10 years of the reconstruction investment fund, profits will be entirely reinvested into Ukraine’s economy, either in new initiatives or reconstruction efforts.”
“On April 30 2025, the U.S. and Ukraine agreed on and signed their long-awaited minerals deal. The deal establishes the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, through which the U.S. has promised to increase investment, accelerating Ukraine’s economic growth and eventual post-war reconstruction, in exchange for mineral access. Resource-based investment agreements have played a considerable role in modern post-war contexts with questionable results. In Liberia and Sierra Leone, iron ore deals did stimulate economic recovery, but with serious concerns about human rights violations, environmental damage, and corruption. Elsewhere, investment agreements have inflamed conflict. Violence in the eastern DRC has only worsened after the 2007 Sino-Congolese Infrastructure-for-Minerals Deal, as armed insurgent groups vie for mineral access. Without effective peacekeeping and monitoring mechanisms, such agreements can do more harm than good. The U.S.-Ukraine minerals deal can succeed where others have faltered, as it incentivizes a transactional Trump administration to finally put the necessary pressure on Russia to end the war in Ukraine’s favor. This new avenue of economic cooperation promises tangible benefits to the U.S. At the same time, large swaths of Ukraine’s mineral wealth exist in occupied territories or near the frontline. As such, President Trump, whose foreign policy is guided mainly by economic interests, may have a stronger incentive to facilitate a just peace that ensures Ukrainian control over the contested regions. The deal has already produced a notable shift in tone against Russia’s maximalist demands. On May 10, Vice President JD Vance commented that “Russia can’t expect to be given territory they haven’t conquered yet.” Vice President Vance’s statement differs from previous American peace proposals put forward just last month, which called on Ukraine to cede whole territories currently under partial Russian occupation. With concrete interests for the U.S. at stake, President Trump could be motivated to combine new, crushing sanctions against Russia with additional military aid to finally end the war on Ukraine’s terms. Optimistically, the Fund could be the economic engine that drives closer understanding and collaboration between the U.S. and Ukraine across critical sectors. This could happen, especially with European collaboration and the potential post-war deployment of NATO peacekeepers to deter future Russian aggression. However, like any post-conflict investment deal, it could also generate misunderstandings and breed resentment as a result of unmet expectations. The Fund could also lead to an increasingly asymmetric, exploitative relationship. Given the Trump administration’s volatility, this is a real risk. Any rift could significantly hinder Ukraine’s effort to win a fair peace settlement and rebuild as a prosperous, Western-facing democracy. Overall, the U.S.-Ukraine minerals deal is a vital step forward in overcoming the tumultuous early relationship between Kyiv and the Trump administration. But much remains in question. Time will tell how the establishment of the Fund affects one of the most consequential relationships in contemporary geopolitics.”
“Resource-based investment agreements between countries or between a country and an international company can serve as a sustainable model for economic development whether post-conflict or not, if the terms ensure that the people of the country will benefit and if the targeted country has the capacity, transparency, and political will to enforce them. The agreement should have conditions that ensure environmental protection, the employment of local populations at livable wages in safe conditions with food security, housing, health care, adequate security from extraction to export, and training in value-added processing and upward mobility within the company. Botswana is a good example of a country that effectively implemented resource-based investment agreements with DeBeers, Lazare Kaplan, and other international companies that have moved it from a least developed to an upper-middle-income country. Although not post-conflict, the principles that Botswana employed are applicable and serve as a sustainable model for post-conflict economic reconstruction and international development.”
“The recent U.S.-Ukraine minerals agreement underscores how post-conflict reconstruction is shaped not just by material resources, but by persistent power asymmetries and the narratives that legitimize them. While the deal is presented as a partnership, its structure and timing raise pressing questions about the agency and whose interests are ultimately served. Linking aid to geopolitical strategy is not new, and in fragile contexts like Ukraine, this association often blurs the distinction between support and leverage. The U.S. has explicitly framed its assistance as transactional, conditioning further military and economic support on preferential access to Ukraine’s mineral wealth. This approach exposes Ukraine to the volatility of U.S. political priorities and places strain on the bilateral relationship. Moreover, the focus on minerals and markets risks sidelining deeper issues such as justice, self-determination, and ecological sustainability. For sustainable recovery, it is crucial to move beyond extractive models and ensure that local voices and diverse approaches to development are genuinely prioritized. Otherwise, there is a real danger that Ukraine’s reconstruction will reinforce dependency and external control, rather than foster true resilience and autonomy.”
DevelopmentAid: What are the potential risks and benefits of linking geopolitical strategy with development aid, particularly in fragile or conflict-affected states like Ukraine?
“The mineral deal between the U.S. and Ukraine has the potential to reshape the dynamics of the region’s diplomacy when structured with the underlying principles of international development, such as sustainable peace and security. By strengthening bilateral relations, aligning strategic interests, fostering economic dependencies, facilitating multilateral cooperation, and pursuing geostrategic orientations, the deal is expected to have an impact on political alliances. The deal must utilize development aid to enhance the collective strategic positioning, including trade agreements, and promote economic growth and market access that may not be possible with unilateral trade agreements. In the absence of enduring peace in Ukraine, the security landscape within the country will remain too unstable to justify long-term investments in establishing a mine and its necessary infrastructure. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, “On average, developing a mine globally takes around 18 years and requires an investment of between US$500 million and US$1 billion to construct both the mine and a separation facility. Since a mine can operate for more than 50 years, investor confidence in a jurisdiction’s political and economic stability is essential due to the scale and long-term nature of the investment.”
DevelopmentAid: To what extent can the new U.S.-Ukraine security and investment agreements contribute to ending the war or shifting the conflict’s trajectory in Ukraine’s favor?
“The United States currently believes that the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia cannot continue and needs to be resolved. It is the intention of the United States to leverage its influence and resources to promote peace and establish a lasting resolution to this conflict. As stated in the U.S.-Ukraine security and investment agreements, the United States endorses Ukraine’s initiatives to secure the guarantees necessary to achieve enduring peace and has made a long-term financial commitment to fostering a secure and economically thriving Ukraine. Ukraine’s mineral resources hold significant strategic value and may be endangered if the conflict continues. The country possesses some of the largest deposits of graphite, lithium, titanium, beryllium, and uranium, all of which the U.S. categorizes as essential minerals for economic development and national security. The security and investment agreements between the U.S. and Ukraine may indicate to Russia that the current U.S. administration is dedicated to a peace process that is focused on a free, independent, and thriving Ukraine; however, they do not necessarily contribute to bringing the war to a conclusion, as they are unrelated to any competing geostrategic interests discussions vis-à-vis Russia.”
In a post-conflict or post-war setting, the need for sustainable investments and development is on the rise. That is why the need for experts, particularly in this area, will be in high demand. To avoid missing the potential opportunities that may arise, without having to search daily for openings, DevelopmentAid suggests professionals subscribe to newsletter and alerts on the largest job board in the international development sector. Individual Professional Members can access all these positions with just a few clicks. Moreover, they can also search for tenders and grants for individuals, get in contact with funding agencies and organizations, and stay up to date with all the latest news, events, reports, and editorials covering the sector.
