President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, during a closed door meeting on Wednesday, rejected an offer by Trump’s administration to give up half of the country’s mineral resources in exchange for US support, according to five people informed about the proposal or with direct knowledge of conversations.
The unusual agreement would have granted the United States to a 50 % interest in all Ukraine minerals, including graphite, lithium and uranium, as compensation for previous and future support for KIEB’s war effort against Russian invaders, according to Two European officials. A Ukrainian official and an energy expert who informed the proposal said Trump’s administration also requested Ukrainian energy resources.
The negotiations continue, according to another Ukrainian official who, like the others, spoke about the condition of anonymity given the sensitivity of the talks. But the extension of the proposal and the strained negotiations on it prove the expanding gap between Kiev and Washington for the two ongoing US support and a possible end to war.
The request for half of Ukraine minerals took place on Wednesday, when US Finance Minister Scott Bessent met with Mr Zelensky in Kiev, the first visit by a Trump administration employee to Ukraine. The Ministry of Finance declined to comment on any negotiation.
After seeing the proposal, the Ukrainians decided to review the details and provide a confrontation when Mr Zelensky visited the Munich Security Conference on Friday and met with Vice President JD Vance, according to the employee.
It is not clear if there was a confrontation.
Speaking to reporters in Munich on Saturday, Mr Zelensky acknowledged that he had rejected a proposal from Trump’s administration. He did not specify what the terms of the agreement were, except to say that he had not included Washington security guarantees.
“I don’t see this connection to the document,” he said. “In my opinion. He is not ready to protect us. Our interests.”
The security guarantee is crucial because the Ukrainians believe that the United States and Britain have failed to meet their obligations to protect the country under an agreement signed at the end of the Cold War when Ukraine abandoned Russian nuclear weapons.
European diplomats had a different objection. They complained that the negotiation recalled colonialism, a time when Western countries took advantage of smaller or weaker nations for merchandise.
In Munich, a bay also appeared in Trump’s plans to end the war between the United States and its European allies. Many of them said they were more confusing than they came before.
A Ukrainian official and an energy expert informed of Mr Bessent’s offer said he covered not only half of Ukraine minerals, but also other natural resources such as oil and gas. The employee also stated that the proposal gave the United States a claim for half of Ukraine’s profits from exporting resources and selling new export licenses.
Accession to these demands would deprive the Ukrainian government of millions of dollars to revenue that today has almost entirely investing in the country’s defense. During the first half of last year, Naftogaz, the Ukrainian government’s state -owned giant and gas, reported a profit of more than half billions of dollars.
The idea of ​​utilizing Ukrainian fossil resources began to be formed last summer. Mr Zelensky’s government, trying to attract Mr Trump’s approach and fearing that he will follow his promises to stop military and financial aid to Ukraine, has decided to promote an agreement that will essentially market Ukrainian critical minerals for US help.
The Ukrainian president presented the idea to Mr Trump during a September meeting in New York, and the proposal gained politicians from influence, including Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican. It also came after US businessmen – including Ronald S. Lauder, a wealthy friend of Mr Trump – showed an interest in investing in Ukraine fossil resources.
Kiev had always argued that access to his natural resources will come in return for strong Washington security guarantees. However, one of the Ukrainian officials said the proposal did not undertake such a commitment, rather than shaping access to Ukraine’s resources as a delayed payment for previous US military and financial aid.
Ukraine has 109 significant mineral deposits, including those with Titanium, Lithium and Urani ores, according to a list compiled by the KIEB Economics School, except for oil and gas. Some, however, are in the territory already under Russian occupation or near the front line.
Their value is uncertain. In addition to the risks of a repeated Russian invasion after a ceasefire-a risk of agreement with the United States is intended to reduce-integrally established problems in Ukraine’s business climate have hit investment for much of the country’s post-independent history.
These include Arcane regulation and confidentiality dealing with Ukrainian entrepreneurs and politicians, who could limit profits from regulation. Even before the war, few investors were addressed to Ukraine’s mining agreements.
But there is a precedent for Ukraine to mix security and businesses with the United States under Mr Trump. In his first term in 2017, he hit an agreement on Ukraine to buy carbon from Pennsylvania to replace carbon from mines in Ukraine who lost under Russian occupation after the 2014 invasion.
Kostiantyn Yelisieriev, a former diplomat and deputy staff of the staff under Ukrainian president as the deal was hit, recalled that the deal had allowed Mr Trump to declare that he had saved jobs in Pennsylvania, a swing. For Kiev, the deal opened the door for Mr Trump to provide fatal military aid to Ukraine with the approval of anti-dimensional missile sales.
At that time, Ukrainian officials saw it as a success, Mr Yelisiev said. “He confirmed that Trump is not a person of values, but a person of interests and money,” and that Ukraine could find a way to work with him for security, he said.
But the debate under the debate now, he said, is lifting the approach in ways that Russia could give Russia a propaganda by winning war as a battle for natural resources, not the independence or the Republic of Ukraine.
“It is more important to say that it is the protection of democracies and the conquest of Putin,” he said.
