For decades American foreign policy has been defined by military interventions, security guarantees and ideological alliances. These features can be traced back to Cold War theatres in Vietnam and the Korean peninsula, as well as more recent engagements in the Middle East. The US has frequently leveraged its military might to shape the world order, often in pursuit of democracy, continuity or the containment of rivals.
However, a new era is emerging — one where economic partnerships, especially those tied to critical minerals, increasingly define the terms of US engagement abroad. This shift is starkly illustrated by the landmark US-Ukraine minerals deal signed on April 30, which grants the US preferential access to Ukraine’s rich mineral resources in exchange for Washington’s continued financial backing, signalling a transformation in the logic of American diplomacy. No longer is support simply a matter of security or ideology; it is now explicitly transactional, with critical resources at its core.
After months of tense negotiations the deal creates a joint investment fund to channel US support into Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction, while also meeting the Trump administration’s demand for a share of future revenues from new licences for critical minerals, oil and gas. Key features of the deal include:
- The US gains priority investment opportunities in 57 mineral resources, including titanium, lithium, cobalt, uranium, rare earths, gold and platinum. Ukrainian officials confirmed the exclusion of existing revenue-generating assets, meaning profits depend on new investments.
- A US-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, managed equally by both countries, will be financed by 50% of revenues from new projects. Profits will be reinvested in Ukraine for at least a decade.
- Ukraine retains full ownership and control over its subsoil and resources, determining extraction locations and methods. The deal also mandates compliance with Ukrainian and EU law, ensuring it doesn’t compromise Ukraine’s efforts to join the EU.
- The agreement explicitly excludes obligations for Ukraine to repay previous US military or financial assistance, resolving a major point of contention.
- Despite Kyiv’s push, the deal lacks explicit US security commitments. Instead, it affirms “long-term strategic alignment” and pledges continued support for Ukraine’s security and prosperity.
The deal has faced domestic criticism. Opposition legislators in Ukraine warn it could lead to complications down the line, while former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev accused the US of “breaking” Kyiv through transactional diplomacy. Ratification by Ukraine’s parliament is pending, with further technical treaties expected.
Ukraine’s mineral wealth is extraordinary. Before Russia’s 2022 invasion the country held in excess of 20,000 mineral deposits, including 117 of the 120 most globally used metals and minerals. It ranked among Europe’s top suppliers of lithium, titanium and rare earth elements — resources vital for electric vehicles, renewable energy and advanced weaponry.
The war has intensified their strategic importance. Russia controls about $12.5-trillion worth of Ukrainian minerals, including large shares of its lithium, tantalum and caesium reserves. Securing Western investment is now crucial for Kyiv’s reconstruction and economic recovery. For the US, the deal locks in access to minerals vital for national security and technological dominance. US President Donald Trump has framed the agreement as “payback” for $183bn in US wartime aid, though critics question the conflation of aid repayment with resource access.
Economic entanglement now serves as a form of strategic assurance, with shared financial interests incentivising sustained US engagement with Ukraine despite the absence of formal security guarantees. The deal also reflects intensifying global resource competition, directly challenging China’s mineral supply chain dominance through parallel US efforts to secure mineral reserves as alternatives to China’s Belt & Road Initiative.
The Trump administration has actively touted the merits of this transactional approach and, as global demand for critical minerals surges, such agreements are likely to proliferate. Their success will hinge on the extent to which they are seen to be transparent, equitable and cognisant of the security concerns raised by the parties involved.
• Kajee is a lecturer at Southern Utah University.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.