Highlights

• Ukraine attempted to leverage rare earth and critical minerals as a strategy to secure U.S. support and prevent Russian control.
• U.S. proposed mineral agreements raised political tensions, with potential violations of EU regulations and unclear investment terms.
• Experts highlight significant challenges in developing mineral resources, including massive investment requirements, unclear ownership, and ongoing security concerns.

Ukraine attempted to court U.S. support—particularly under President Trump—by offering preferential access to its vast reserves of rare earth and critical minerals, including titanium, uranium, lithium, and others. The pitch was meant to frame Ukraine’s resources as vital to Western security and industrial interests, especially to prevent Russian control.

However, the strategy backfired with some unfolding details reported by Veronika Melkozerova for POLITICO (opens in a new tab) Europe.

A U.S. delegation, led by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, proposed an agreement that would have handed over half of Ukraine’s rare earths to American firms without providing security guarantees or investment support. Ukrainian President Zelenskyy rejected the initial draft, but a revised version with similar terms was later reintroduced, causing political turmoil and potentially violating EU regulations.

Kyiv is now trying to adjust the deal without provoking Trump’s ire.

Beyond the political misstep, experts note that unlocking Ukraine’s critical minerals will require massive investment, peace, and modern legal frameworks. As Rare Earth Exchange has reported, many of the deposits are on Russian-held lands. Most mineral reserves were documented during the Soviet era and lacked clarity on ownership, environmental compliance, and commercial feasibility.

Companies like UkrLithiumMining and Velta Group warn that even promising sites will require hundreds of millions—and at least a decade—to become productive. As it stands, Ukraine’s hope for strategic mineral-backed recovery remains more aspirational than actionable, especially without stable security guarantees or transparent investment terms.