**Ukraine’s Mineral Wealth: A Threat to Its Sovereignty**
Eleven years ago, Russia invaded Ukrainian territory by force. Three years ago, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Today, Ukraine faces a new threat to its sovereignty: the demand from U.S. President Donald Trump that the country hand over a significant amount of its mineral wealth or face the prospect of future Russian intervention without American support.
This proposed “agreement” has been met with skepticism from mining experts and pushback from Kyiv. The Kremlin has even made a counteroffer, showing just how little consideration was given to Ukraine’s interests in this deal. What’s shocking is that this mineral deal seems to have ignored the ambitions of the Ukrainian people altogether – and yet it has been met with bipartisan acclaim in the U.S.
**A Fiasco for Both Americans and Ukrainians**
Instead of creating an economic bond between the two nations, this mineral deal will be a disaster for both America and Ukraine. A deal made through coercion rather than equitable negotiation with community consultation will not only worsen Ukraine’s humanitarian emergency and long-term development efforts but also fail to strengthen America’s mineral supply chain.
Trump is right that the U.S. needs critical minerals like lithium, graphite, and rare earths to power its energy and security technology. However, Oxfam knows firsthand that deals made without community consent are destined to fail. When people are unable to shape how or if mining proceeds in their backyards, companies and governments bear the cost of protests, work stoppages, and lawsuits.
**Mining Deals: A Recipe for Disaster**
Even in the best circumstances, mining deals routinely fall apart. In conflict zones like Ukraine, all bets are off. Mining is capital-intensive and often dangerous work. Land disputes are common, and even well-designed projects can undermine human rights activists, host communities, Indigenous groups, and local small-scale miners. Moreover, profits are by no means guaranteed, especially not in the short term: only 30% of Ukraine’s critical minerals are in operational mines.
**A Better Way Forward**
There is a better way forward. First, the U.S. and Ukrainian governments should be realistic about the short-term benefits of mining cooperation and appreciate that developing Ukraine’s natural resources is a years-long endeavor. It will not create the kind of short-term bond that Ukraine requires for its security. Rather, with an estimated $524 billion recovery bill, these resources would be better utilized as part of a long-term domestic fund for reconstruction and redevelopment.
Second, the U.S. government should focus on building out a resilient mineral supply chain by ensuring that local communities have a real say in whether and how mining projects move forward and investing in a more business-friendly environment.
Lastly, policymakers should pursue a just and sustainable peace that recognizes Ukraine’s territorial integrity and ensures the safety of the Ukrainian people.
**Conclusion**
This latest round of “mineral diplomacy” reflects a new geopolitical reality that will be shaped by what lies beneath. Diplomacy, however, requires respect, engagement, and tact. Should the U.S. relationship with Ukraine veer toward “mineral colonialism” – shaped by subservience, arrogance, and domination without consideration for the Ukrainian people – neither side will win.