[Skybird]

[Tagesspiegel] "The text is a horror": What Trump's new draft of the Ukraine raw materials deal contains

The scandal in the White House prevented the conclusion of a raw materials deal between the US and Ukraine. Now the Americans have presented a new draft – and it's quite something.

By Valeriia Semeniuk

"Plundering," "slavery," "colonial enslavement of Ukraine": Ukrainian and Western media have found harsh terms in recent days for the new version of the so-called raw materials deal that the US wants to conclude with the country attacked by Russia.

A quick reminder: The agreement, which gives Washington a share of revenue from Ukrainian natural resources, should have been signed long ago. US President Donald Trump had pushed for it at the beginning of the year, but his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, eventually caved.
The Tagesspiegel app: Current news, background information, and analysis delivered directly to your smartphone. Plus the digital newspaper. Download it for free here.

But then, on February 28, the famous scandal in the White House occurred, in which Trump ejected Zelensky from his government headquarters after an argument in front of live cameras. And the raw materials agreement seemed to be off the table for the time being.

But now the issue is back on the agenda. Ukraine will face "very big problems" if it backs out and refuses to sign the planned agreement, Trump threatened last Sunday. However, the content of the deal has been changed in recent weeks – to Kyiv's disadvantage.

While it was originally primarily about US participation in the revenues from the mining of so-called rare earths, oil and gas have now been added. This is according to statements by Ukrainian politicians who have been given access to the draft. The White House also reportedly wants to co-manage Ukrainian infrastructure such as ports, pipelines, and the railway network.

"The text I saw is simply horrific," said shocked Ukrainian MP Yaroslav Zheleznyak. The only hope, he said, is that it is not yet a final document, but a draft.

However, Zheleznyak should also be aware that Trump, who temporarily withheld all military aid from Ukraine in order to impose his will in negotiations with Russia, is not known for his willingness to compromise.

One of Washington's fundamental conditions is that Ukraine should recognize $120 billion in previous US aid as debt.

That is certainly less than the $350 billion Trump initially wanted. But for the war-torn country, whose gross domestic product in 2024 was $180 billion, it is still overwhelmingly high. Many in Kyiv are also offended that the new US president wants back money that his predecessor, Joe Biden, once gave them as aid among allies.

According to the deal, Ukrainian debt is also considered a basic US contribution to a Ukrainian-American investment fund intended to benefit reconstruction.
Ukraine is rich in natural resources. However, this Donetsk coal mine is currently located in Russian-occupied territory.

If Trump has his way, the fund will be managed by a "general partner" appointed by the US. Ukraine, on the other hand, will only be a "limited partner": without decision-making power, but with the financial obligation to pay 50 percent of future income to the fund. An earlier version of the draft had envisioned the two sides as equal partners with equal rights.

Three of the five seats on the fund's supervisory board now go to Washington, and only two to Ukraine. And the US will have the primary right to invest in the Ukrainian economy. Only if the American side is not interested in investing will Kyiv have the right to negotiate with other states.

"Ukraine has become a hostage of Trump, who is notorious for his aggressive business practices," Yevhen Mahda, director of a Ukrainian think tank called the Institute for World Politics, told the Tagesspiegel newspaper. Yevhen Mahda is a political scientist and heads the Ukrainian think tank Institute for World Politics.

On the one hand, such an agreement would be political suicide for Zelensky, says Mahden. Furthermore, it is unlikely that a majority in parliament will vote for ratification of the document in its current form. "Without ratification, however, the agreement cannot enter into force," explains Mahda.

However, the political scientist also sees the significant risk that non-signing could pose for his country: The easily offended Trump could perceive this as a public slap in the face. "The US president is already annoyed by Zelensky's intransigence, which he perceives as an inability to negotiate," says Mahda. "Rejection of the agreement could be the final straw that leads to a final split between Ukraine and the US – with unforeseeable consequences."

On the other hand, the expert believes it cannot be ruled out that Trump is deliberately pushing the terms of the deal so high that Ukraine could no longer agree to it. Then, he argues, Trump could officially blame Zelensky for the failure of his peace initiative.

Kyiv therefore has little choice but to hope that Washington will soften its own demands. This did indeed work once before with the previous version of the deal – the one Zelenskyy was supposed to sign during his US visit at the end of February. Even then, the US side's ideas originally went significantly further than those ultimately reflected in the final draft.

Mustafa Nayem is the former head of the State Agency for the Reconstruction of Ukraine.

The former head of the State Agency for the Reconstruction of Ukraine, Mustafa Nayem, refuses to give up his confidence. "It is necessary to make a number of changes that ensure Ukraine's equal representation and reduce financial risks," he says. "Then the model envisaged in the agreement would transform from a threat to Ukraine into a development opportunity."

But Nayem has already negotiated with the US investment agency DFC, which is now slated to co-found the new US-Ukrainian Development Fund. He therefore also knows: "The DFC is primarily concerned with protecting American investments. Therefore, Ukraine should not appeal to political sympathies, but rather to the pragmatic interests of the United States."

His optimism is therefore extremely cautious, as Najjem himself admits. "So far, the agreement has been formulated entirely in the interests of the American side," he says. "Without any real powers or guarantees for Ukraine."