Signing a mineral deal has become a hot topic in Ukraine-US policy relations, with the Trump administration viewing it as part of a broader push for a quick peace with Putin.
The analysis by the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) reveals the risks of the much-discussed deal, breaking down why it can’t ensure peace without military guarantees.
In this post, we explain what’s wrong with the mineral deal and why it can’t be a viable solution for securing lasting peace in Ukraine.
International law prohibits pressure in deal-making
The international law strictly prohibits using pressure in treaty-making. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, an international agreement that sets the legal framework for treaties between states, says that any treaty obtained through coercion, threats, or the use of force has no legal effect.
This deal also contradicts the earlier US-Ukraine agreements. In 1994, the US became a signatory of the Budapest Memorandum, which offered Ukraine security assurances in exchange for giving up its world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal. Article 3 of the agreement explicitly commits the US to “refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate Ukraine’s sovereign rights for its own advantage.”
US military aid to Ukraine was provided as a grant
Most of the US aid to Ukraine has been in the form of irrevocable grants. Only $9.4 billion of American support, approved in April 2024, was given as a potentially forgivable loan. However, in November 2024, President Biden forgave half of the loan ($4.7 billion), leaving the remaining half to be handled by the Trump administration, which could decide whether it needs to be repaid.
US mineral profits will greatly exceed the amount of provided aid
While the total US aid to Ukraine since 2022 has only been $175 billion, the Trump administration is demanding the repayment of a much higher amount of $500 billion — more than all the US and EU aid to Ukraine combined.
Most of the American aid to Ukraine stayed in the US
Of the $175 billion in U.S. aid to Ukraine, only $43 billion has been delivered directly to Ukraine, mostly as humanitarian aid. Another $60 billion of Ukraine aid has been actually directed to strengthen the US military presence in Europe and provide assistance to Europe.
Nearly $66 billion of the US aid, amounting to the military assistance to Ukraine, actually stayed in the US and was invested into its economy. Most of these funds were invested into the US arms manufacturing, creating jobs for Americans and helping the country to replenish its military stockpiles.
Mineral deal won’t provide direct benefits to American taxpayers
The agreement implies opening a joint mineral fund where Ukraine would allocate part of its state-extracted minerals, while the US will be using revenues from it to make further investments in Ukraine. This means that the financial returns won’t go back to the US government or taxpayers, but will mostly benefit American investors and companies operating in Ukraine.
The deal without security guarantees can’t prevent Russian aggression
While Trump’s administration argues that America’s economic presence in Ukraine will protect its interests, it can’t replace security commitments, especially after failing to prevent Russia’s aggression.
According to Volodymyr Zelenskyy, over 20 American companies operated in Russian-occupied areas before the full-scale invasion, which didn’t stop it – just as the presence of US businesses across the rest of Ukraine doesn’t stop Russia from carrying out regular attacks.
