Highlights

• Zelenskyy and US officials failed to reach an agreement on critical minerals exchange at the Munich Security Conference.
• Trump administration ties economic support to Ukraine's economic privatization, demanding significant mineral resources.
• Unresolved concerns about Ukraine's mineral viability and lack of infrastructure challenge potential resource partnership.

Talks between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and U.S. Vice President JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference ended without a deal on critical minerals, a key component of Ukraine’s effort to secure U.S. backing under President Donald Trump’s administration. Kyiv had presented a revised agreement granting U.S. access to its mineral resources but concerns over a "one-sided" U.S. proposal stalled negotiations. Zelenskyy emphasized that Ukraine was offering a partnership rather than a giveaway, but insiders claim the U.S. approach resembled a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum.

The Trump administration’s version of the deal ties U.S. economic support to deeper integration of Ukraine’s economy with American "privatization best practices." Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent framed it as ensuring that U.S. taxpayers see returns on their investment in Ukraine, further highlighting Washington’s shift toward economic leverage over military aid. Trump has previously demanded $500 billion in rare earths from Ukraine in exchange for continued support, underlining his transactional approach to diplomacy reports Reuters (opens in a new tab).

Rare Earth Exchanges reports the Reuters piece overlooked some key risks and gaps.  This media has emphasized that there are little in the form of modern assessments of Ukraine’s mineral viability.  Much of Ukraine’s mineral data is based on outdated Soviet-era surveys with no contemporary commercial validation. 

Also Kyiv seeks robust security guarantees from the U.S. and Europe, but no clear commitments were made. A peace deal without enforceable protections leaves Ukraine vulnerable. What about privatization as a condition?  The U.S. proposal suggests aggressive economic restructuring, raising questions about whether Washington is seeking strategic investment or outright control of Ukraine’s natural resources.

Perplexing is the lack of media coverage of rudimentary topics, such as the lack of mention of mining and processing capability.

Extracting and refining rare earths, or for that matter critical minerals, is capital-intensive, and Ukraine lacks the necessary infrastructure or investment commitments to make this deal viable in the near term.  Finally we ponder if U.S. investors would buy in once they understood the constraints.

That is, without clear assessments, major American mining firms have yet to express serious interest, making the feasibility of this plan questionable.

The bottom line comes down to what appears to be a stalemate with high stakes.

Zelenskyy’s push for a critical minerals deal is part of a broader effort to lock in U.S. economic and security backing, but the Trump administration appears more interested in securing financial leverage rather than military guarantees. With no agreement reached, deep skepticism over Ukraine’s mineral potential, and no immediate investor commitments, the deal remains in political and economic limbo.