Highlights

• Donald Trump suggests Ukraine pay U.S. aid with mineral resources.
• Most critical minerals are in Russian-occupied territories.
• Ukraine holds significant lithium and titanium reserves.
• Mining operations are paralyzed due to the ongoing Russian invasion.
• The proposal risks undermining the U.S.-Ukraine strategic partnership by framing aid as a transactional resource extraction deal.

---

Donald Trump’s latest proposal to have Ukraine pay for U.S. financial and military aid with its so-called "rare earths" reveals a striking misunderstanding of Ukraine’s actual resource wealth. The former U.S. president's comments, which suggest that Ukraine should secure its debt to Washington with its mineral resources, ignore an important reality: Ukraine does not possess significant rare earth elements (REEs). Instead, the country is rich in critical minerals, including lithium, titanium, and various industrial metals essential for defense, electric vehicle production, and clean energy technologies. More importantly, over half of these resources are currently in Russian-occupied territory, making Trump’s vision very likely geopolitically unrealistic, if not outright impossible.

Multiple media outlets worldwide offer important points of view, such as The Guardian (opens in a new tab) in the United Kingdom.

What’s Underground in Ukraine?

Ukraine holds one of Europe’s largest lithium reserves, estimated at half a million tonnes, which could fuel Europe’s battery production ambitions. However, mining operations have been paralyzed since the full-scale Russian invasion in 2022, rendering these resources largely inaccessible. Furthermore, vast reserves of titanium and other critical minerals sit in the contested regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Crimea, areas that Moscow annexed or continues to occupy. Putin effectively controls much of Ukraine’s most valuable mineral wealth, meaning any attempt to leverage these assets as security for American aid is dependent on Kyiv reclaiming this lost ground. This prospect remains uncertain in the face of a grinding, attritional war.

An Ethical Dilemma?

Beyond the factual inaccuracies of Trump’s claim, his remarks highlight a larger geopolitical dilemma: the commodification of wartime aid. By publicly suggesting that Ukraine collateralize its resources, Trump is shifting the narrative of U.S. support from strategic partnership to transactional debt repayment. This not only emboldens critics who claim the U.S. is exploiting Ukraine’s vulnerability but also plays directly into Kremlin propaganda, reinforcing Putin’s narrative that Western aid is not about democracy or security but about extracting wealth from Ukraine. The Kremlin wasted no time seizing on Trump’s statement, using it to argue that Washington is losing interest in “free aid” to Kyiv, subtly undermining Ukraine’s diplomatic position.

Needed: Investment

The reality is that Ukraine’s mineral wealth is far from an easy financial lifeline. Even if Kyiv were able to restart mining operations tomorrow, developing a competitive rare metal supply chain requires infrastructure, investment, and, most critically, security—none of which Ukraine currently has. The West, particularly the European Union, has long sought to reduce dependence on China for minerals like lithium and titanium, and Ukraine has been seen as a potential future supplier. However, the feasibility of such a supply chain is tied to long-term stability, not short-term political deals. Suppose Trump’s remarks foreshadow a broader mercantilist approach to U.S. foreign policy. In that case, it raises deeper questions about whether future American assistance to Ukraine will be conditioned on resource extraction deals rather than strategic interests.

Real Need for USA—Long-term Alliances to Counter China

Ultimately, Trump’s framing of Ukraine’s mineral wealth as a form of collateral for U.S. aid ignores the on-the-ground reality of war, resource accessibility, and the global supply chain’s complexities. More dangerously, it could open the door for future U.S. administrations to demand economic concessions in exchange for military support, a shift that could undermine allied trust and embolden adversaries. Suppose the U.S. wants to counterbalance China’s dominance in the critical minerals sector. In that case, it should be investing in long-term partnerships and industrial infrastructure—not treating war-torn nations as collateral banks for short-term political rhetoric.