US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv on Wednesday to discuss President Trump’s idea for a deal to give the US access to Ukraine’s rare earth minerals and other natural resources in exchange for continued US military aid.
Bessent said that a rare earth deal would ensure Ukraine will have a post-war “security shield” from the US, signaling the Trump administration’s idea for a peace deal will involve continued US military aid, an idea that may not be acceptable to Russia.
“By increasing our economic commitment through a partnership with the government and people of Ukraine, that will provide — once this conflict is over — it will provide a long-term security shield for all Ukrainians,” Bessent said.
While the details are unclear, Bessent and Zelensky said they discussed the preparation of a document for a potential deal. “I believe this document is important from President Trump’s perspective in resolving this conflict as soon as possible. We will provide guarantees of American assistance to the people of Ukraine. I believe this is a very strong signal to Russia about our intentions,” Bessent said.
Zelensky said he was happy with the US proposal. “We had a productive, constructive conversation. For me, the issue of security guarantees for Ukraine is very important, and we talked about minerals in general,” he said.
The meeting came on the same day President Trump spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin and said negotiations on ending the war in Ukraine would begin “immediately.”
After the call with Putin, Trump touted his idea for a rare earth deal, telling reporters it was necessary to “secure” the money the US has spent on the proxy war. “We’re getting security on our money; we’re gonna have it secured. They have rare earth and oil and gas, and they have a lot of other things. We’re asking for security in our money,” he said.
When asked if the US would send more aid to Ukraine, Trump said, “We are but we want the money secured.”
We will extend the war if you give us a good reason for it, Mr. Zelensky. And by "good reason" I mean all your mineral riches, mwahahahaha!
The ridiculous part of this is that all those minerals are readily available in the United States or in greater North America; including two immense lithium deposits just announced (one in Arkansas, one in Nevada). What is LACKING is the will in the USA to invest in an expensive, dirty, ecologically harmful process that may not yield much return on investment, as the Chinese are already producing these elements at a fairly low market price. Just to get the mines working in Ukraine will require an immense capital outlay, and who in their right mind would even consider doing that, given the uncertainty and corruption in what will be left of that nation? Certainly Ukraine can't afford it; couldn't afford it prior to 2022; couldn't afford it prior to 2014. Mining in Ukraine has been on the decline since independence.
Just as support; from the USGS review of Ukraine's mining industry in 2019:
"Ukraine’s mining, metallurgy, and other mineral sectors had significant setbacks during the past few years. Primary aluminum production stopped, and it was not clear if another owner could make production profitable; coal mines and petroleum refineries were outdated and required significant investments; and steel plants were struggling to break even financially"
Further:
"It still remains to be seen if the Government and the owners of privately owned industrial facilities will be able to reach compromises and whether the country will be able to attract new investments to move the mineral and metallurgical industries forward"
And that was BEFORE the loss of major resources, the destruction of much of the eastern infrastructure and energy sector, and the loss of so many people.
It makes investing in Afghanistan or Libya look attractive.
If they get the mines for free (in payment for some of Ukraine’s unpayable massive debt and “gifts”) and there is peace, then it will be very profittable to develop those mines (many of which were already working before the war anyhow or in Soviet times at least — Ukraine is full of mining residue heaps that are key tactical points in almost every town affected by the war, as the geography is quite flat otherwise). Ukrainian workforce is extremely cheap and legal constraints will be lifted if they exist at all.
Canada and Australia (pretty much the USA in all but name) are full of minin companies willing to develop such resources, I’m sure.
Ukraine, on their own, before the fighting started, never managed to open any of those “rare earth” mines for production due to the capital cost involved; in the main, they are not actual “mines”, just identified deposits. EVERYTHING needs to be developed, including the processing plants. Ukraine sure can’t pay for it; so someone else will have to, and that will at least for the first few years eat up all the revenue those mines may produce. Its why China has some 90% of the market; only they have been willing to dedicate the money necessary to develop the resource. And Ukraine does NOTHING “for free”, nor should they. Zelensky is already calling it a “partnership”, meaning the west provides the investment cost, Ukraine provides access and labor, and the parties split the profits (if any) AFTER the normal graft, corruption, and fraud takes their cut.
And yes, LOTS of western companies would be only too happy to take on the CONTRACTS for development, but they will NOT invest their own money for the opportunity. It’s going to be US taxpayers, if it happens at all.
Mining works that way: you get the concesion, you invest your capital in the development, pay your taxes locally and keep the rest as profits or returns. If a country develops its own mining facilities (rare nowadays), why would they give a concesion to a company?
The “concession” would be “given” to the USA, not a private company; else the private company would keep the profits, NOT the US taxpayer, which is the whole point of this transaction
But What’s your point? Ukraine could not afford to open any of these mines on their own; and even before the coup, NO ONE would invest in them. The US taxpayers will have to pay for it, through contracts issued to politically connected firms, and it will be years, if ever, before there is a net positive return. Being that these mines will be in Ukraine, a now-devastated shell, and that Ukraine remains the most corrupt country in Europe, it is doubtful whether the US taxpayer will ever see a nickel of return. We all saw how corrupt and incompetent Haliburton was in its contracted, taxpayer-paid responsibilities in Afghanistan and Iraq; one would have to be insane to believe they would do “better” with our money in Ukraine.
Just to add; in 2020, before the war and when Ukraine was still a relatively intact country, they had a GDP of @ 200 Billion dollars, 6% (or $12B) from mining. And that's not profit; that's total revenue before costs are deducted. Many Ukrainian mining endeavors were barely breaking even.
Not much of a base, given the destruction and loss of the last 3 years, from which to launch a "repayment" to the USA of "$500Billion" with.
That’s unclear so far but, in any case the USA would sell or rent the concesion to a minin company.
Ukraine could do what Burkina Faso: concede the mines to whoever is interested (Russia has a major mining industry, China too, no need to look to the West) and pays a proper comission to the state. Of course for that they’d have to achieve independence from the US Empire, which is also what Russia is fighting for (they call it “denazification” but it’s surely more “de-NATO-ization”: purging the NATOist, pro-USA, deep state established in 2014).
The fight is over whether Ukraine continues as a US/EU/NATO imperial satrapy, or goes back to its pre-2014 status as a Russian imperial satrapy.
Those mining interests will be part of the prize for whichever empire prevails.
That’s not realistic, The USA would contract the concession out, but the investment would all be taxpayer money and doesn’t fit this scenario. There is simply no way the math works. The mines do NOT exist; and while the deposits do, IF they had been profitable given the market price for the resource, someone would have begun developing them before now. Trump wants a payoff, not a long term investment with iffy potential returns. IN any case, this is a fantasy and won’t go anywhere.
The investment is always corporate money, unless we’re talking a socialist country, in which the state also keeps the profits. Your logic makes no sense to me.
In any case Trump must show results to his oligarchic allies and he’s doing that by trying to cut expenses and showing off “new opportunities”, such as the imaginary and genocidal “Gaza Riviera” or the more realistic Ukrainian mines.
No, its not. In Iraq and Afghanistan, it was always US federal tax dollars funding the “reconstruction”, even though corporations did the “rebuilding” after first lining their pockets with fraud. There is no room in this scenario for a third party to skim off profits; the whole point is for ukraine to pay back the USA taxpayers, else this isn’t worth doing. Any third party, even an honest one (if any such exist) would want extensive guarantees on their investment anyway, which could only come from the US. On their own, no single company will invest in Ukraine with the corrupt Ukrainian government as a “partner”. They wouldn’t do it before 2012; they wouldn’t do it before 2020; they sure as heck won’t do it now., unless the US government guarantees their investment and assumes the risk.
We’re mixing things here: we’re not talking reconstruction but rather looting (exploiting natural resources). Reconstruction is not even in the agenda and surely Trump will leave that to EU “charity” rather, if at all.
Well, in any case, it seems you don’t consider the mines worth, while Trump (and surely Musk, who is very interested in lithium and the like, having sponsored coups in Bolivia and Peru previously for that reason) are. I suggest you argue with them, as I’m no mining expert myself and very bad at business in spite of having some economics studies.
Lithium is not a rare earth, so that’s a different issue; and we have immense untapped lithium deposits here in the US that we aren’t bothering with so why take on the added risk of mining it in Ukraine?.
Re the rare earths (which are not really rare, and we have sizeable deposits here, including mines that we closed), we are talking about developing an undeveloped resource; creating a refining/processing plant where nothing exists; then mining, processing, delivering to market and selling at world commodity prices, and then taking the revenue AFTER paying for all those incurred costs. With, of course, the corrupt government of Ukraine as a “partner”. It’s not going to happen.
The difference in Ukraine re other locations is that Trump has set a target of a “$500 billion” return; when nothing exists to get a “return” from except rocks in the ground. There is, no matter who does it, an immense up front expense before the first nickel of profit is recouped; who pays for that, given that Ukraine is flat-ass broke? No private company will take that on, knowing that not only do they have to pay for everything, they have a “$500 billion” dollar debt to the US government hanging over their head before their profit taking can begin? It’s an absurd concept. But you are right, time will tell.
I know that lithium is not a rare earth. In fact most of the minerals available in Ukraine are not rare earths. It was Trump who used that (quite wrong) phrase, not me.
Well, there are rare earths there; at least “identified deposits”. most of which appear to be in Russian occupied territory. I suspect Trump is referring to those, although with him, who knows? I stick with my assessment that it’s all a fantasy anyway, so he could be referring to deposits of “unobtainium” or “hardtogetiam”, or even “kryptonite” for all the difference it makes.
I stumbled on this article on Ukraine minerals some days ago and it’s quite informative: https://www.icog.es/TyT/index.php/2022/05/the-mineral-resources-of-ukraine/
“Most of the deposits of metallic minerals and the largest Kryvyi Rih iron ore basin, are connected with the crystalline base of the Ukrainian Shield. In addition, complex primary deposits of ilmenite-apatite ores, deposits of other non-ferrous, precious and rare metals (uranium, aluminium, copper, molybdenum, nickel, beryllium, lithium, germanium, niobium, tantalum, rare earth metals, scandium, gold, platinum). Diamonds, piezoelectric raw material, fluorite, graphite, talc magnesite, nepheline, and a large number of deposits dimensional stones and much more can also be found”.
Notice the usage of the phrase “precious and rare metals”, which is the kind of concept that Trump may have confused with “rare earths” (some of which are anyhow).
In the map under the section “Metallic and non-metallic minerals” you can see the distribution of these and there are many West of the Dniepr, including rare earth areas, gold-silver, titanium-vanadium, etc.
I can’t find the location of unbelievium, my favorite non-existant element, but I’m sure it must also be there. ;p
Those rare earth mineral rights have already been sold. And half are already in Russian hands. Another quarter are in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast which Russia might have in hand by time this conflict ends.
But there is a significant amount of lithium and other minerals (most are not "rare earths" but "rare and valuable minerals" like lithium and gold) west of the Dniepr, inside the lower Dniepr bend, which Russia is not likely to capture any time soon. That's what Trump (or Musk) wants and is presenting as "shield" (i.e. US interest in giving a damn about Ukraine) for Ukraine if given in payment to Uncle Sam.
TBH, it should be the other way around: the USA and the EU should pay Ukraine for the endless sacrifice of their people in an imperialist war but in real life is not like cannon fodder can demand much.
Zelensky, his cronies, and the oligarchs got paid handsomely for betraying their country on the altar of American imperialism. It's only the hoi poloi who got swindled, both financially and by having to serve as cannon fodder.
I know, I know. Terrible history of Europe that of the last decade, really.
More than just the last decades. There were multiple wars in Georgia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Chechnya, etc. And further back, the 90s were a terrible time for Russia when their country was pillaged and humiliated. And the wars in Yugoslavia.
It all started going downhill since the fall of the Berlin Wall; just constant wars. Putin's not wrong when he says that the fall of the Soviet Union was a catastrophe.
Maybe but there was no fascist genocidal terror between the Kosovo war and the 2014 Ukraine coup (at least if we exclude Chechnya). That’s 16 years! And none of those fascist terror episodes were engineered and promoted by NATO/EU but their rivals, i.e. it was not “we”. Now fascism (quasi-fascism, neo-fascism, call it whatever) has become “normalized”, not just in Ukraine but also inside the EU with two openly neofascist governments already in power (Italy and Austria), never mind several other EU countries (Britain and Germany notably) promoting genocide in Palestine. None of all this was even thinkable 20 years ago.
Yes, there is lithium in Ukraine. But there are also immense deposits of lithium in the USA, which we can develop as we like, and will not require any "partnership" from Ukraine; yet so far we haven't done it. If it's not economically viable to mine and process at home, I don't see how mining in Ukraine, with its devastated infrastructure and energy sector, and innate corruption, has any chance of generating "riches". USGS analysis of the Ukraine mining sector PRIOR to 2019 indicate the problems; mining in Ukraine was largely shutting down due to lack of investment, deteriorating plant, and inability to compete with other producers. It looks like a black hole; generating profits for the corrupt Ukrainian government and the (corrupt) US companies like Haliburton, et al, who get the development contracts, and a black hole for US taxpayers. ANOTHER black hole, that is…
"it should be the other way around: the USA and the EU should pay Ukraine for the endless sacrifice of their people in an imperialist war but in real life is not like cannon fodder can demand much."
Yes. From this pov, it doesn't matter whether or not Ukraine is able to 'recompense' the US for military loans – what's important is that such a deal formalizes a political relationship where 'We don't owe you, you owe us':
'Look, we loaned you weapons for your investment in your war. Too bad yr investment didn't pan out…but, now, you do haveta' pay back those loans just the same…
…'least if you want any security.'
It was not their war, it was primarily the US-UK war.
yea, that's the scam…but cannon fodder loses control of the narrative too – as soul noted, no more 'for democracy,' instead, 'start repaying us w/yr metals if you want any support'
(though in this case, as breaking points recently noted, it was z. who maybe a year ago first suggested ukraine's metals to pay back u.s. military loans)
Unless they somehow take back their country via a much needed but extremely unlikely revolution, they will never take back control over the narrative, which is their own history, they will remain under the boot of foreign powers, not just physically but also in soul.
Not sure what Zelensky said (don’t pay much attention to his irritating arrogant ramblings, really) but since the Euromaidan coup Ukraine has been giving away its wealth in all aspects, including a obscure 2014 reported flight of all its gold reserves to the Netherlands (and I presume from there to Britain or the USA). After the coup it’s “damned if you surrender to the USA, damned if you surrender to Russia” (because I have no illusions about the Kremlin being any more benevolent on these matters of neocolonialism/semi-colonialism).
"is not like cannon fodder can demand much."
'Look at the bright side – now those Dems won't make you send yer 18-year-olds into the meat grinder in return for more weapon loans…
…Instead, mothers can rest easy sending their kids into the new 'Slav Labor' rare earth mines. Good 'working pension' for vets too…'
TBH, my very limited interaction with Ukrainians, Ukrainian women to be specific, was very disappointing: she was so brainwashed, in spite of having spent all her summers (as “Chernobyl child”) in this very antifascist Basque Country, that she proclaimed herself “a fascist”. I could have got sympathy (or at least neutrality) for Ukrainians in the past, but now they’re so extremely brainwashed into fascism (she’s clearly not the only one by any means) by a whole decade of Maidan regime, that I’m much more worried by the troubles in Congo or Sudan rather. To me Ukraine is a nuisance and “a Russian problem”, not really “my problem” except in what affects to the EU (essentially gas supplies and self-destructive “sanctions”).
My impression is that what NATO did was to murder the older (not fascist) generations in order to forge a brand new fascist Ukraine. Also to loot Europe in favor of the USA with the pretext of the war. I am by principle against all wars (except liberation ones, I guess) but I’ve lost much interest on what happens in that remote “marche” called Ukraine. If Russia annexes it all, it’s fine for me: their problem now that neonazi nest.
"lost much interest on what happens in that remote 'marche' called Ukraine."
1/ not so remote for me, since – as w/enabling the gaza genocide – my government's been the main money and political force responsible for cannon fodder-ing ukraine.
2/ not my experience of ukrainians either, male or female.
but – beyond my anecdotalist take (based on a Polish wife, thus visiting Ukraine-filled Poland regularly) – recent polls suggest Ukrainians increasingly want peace:
"Poll: Majority of Ukrainians Want Peace Talks to End War with Russia"
"survey marked the first time since the Russian invasion that a Gallup poll found…majority of Ukrainians favored negotiations to end the war. (antiwar)
Is this part of Trump's "immediate peace negotiations"?
I'm certain he himself has no idea how all the disjointed things he has said in the last few weeks and the disjointed things his cabinet members seem to be doing are all going to fit together.
RT three hours ago:
Trump ‘OK’ with keeping Ukraine out of NATO
The US and Russian leaders have agreed to begin Ukraine peace talks, with membership in the military bloc off the table
https://www.rt.com/russia/612626-trump-is-ok-with-keeping-ukraine-out-of-nato/
It's a major declaration although I'm not sure if it gives Russia guarantees enough.
It's not a good enough guarantee for Russia, not by a long shot. It's in fact no guarantee at all past 2028. But what can they do, continue the war until they've captured all of Ukraine?
Totally in agreement. In spite of their sound victories, as they retreated from North Ukraine in 2022, they will have to do either: concesions over their maximalist positions or keep up the war indefinitely, which I don’t believe they can do.
Russia can concede on the mineral and economic issues, they’re only interested in the security risks that Ukraine poses. However they are very tightly interlinked, as Trump is selling the mineral concesions as “shield” for Ukraine (i.e. US guarantee of some sort).
“By increasing our economic commitment through a partnership with the government and people of Ukraine, that will provide — once this conflict is over — it will provide a long-term security shield for all Ukrainians,” Bessent said.
Sounds like NATO lite.
I will guess that Russia will accept US guarantees to Ukraine (once borders have been adjusted) in exchange for absolutely no military deployment whatsoever and Chinese guarantee of that. This issue of international guarantees is touchy and the issue of “denazification” (de-NATO-ization) remains most unclear as well.
However what Trump is proposing is, I understand, is to keep the war (and US subsidies) going in exchange for something (minerals). So it’s the opposite of pushing for peace. Once peace is achieved, Ukraine will not need to give the USA anything: Russia will respect the deal, everybody knows that, no need of US meddling.
"I'm not sure if it gives Russia guarantees enough."
Yes. Because – read the Hegseth speech carefully – what it actually says is that Ukraine will not directly become a NATO member as part of a settlement. ie – 'something impossible won't happen.'
Nothing about future NATO membership – the slow-burning fuse that war criminal Bush lit in 2008, when – in a last, bellicose, destructive legacy act – he arm-twisted NATO into endorsing 'future membership.'
Yet – as I've posted (in Rubio Says Ukraine War Needs To End thread, antiwar):
as Ukraine changed its constitution to include 'NATO aspiration;'
as the US packed it with soldiers, weapons and spy stations;
as Ukraine limited Russian linguistic rights;
as Ukraine failed to grant autonomy to east per Minsk…
…and as the US continued to bay that Ukraine would be made a member, while upping Ukraine's pre-NATO status…
…that was the issue for Russia – Ukraine in NATO, and NATO in Ukraine – that – as long predicted – provoked its criminal invasion.
All that would have to go in order for Russia to be satisfied, and strong guarantees (namely non-NATO credible garantors like China maybe) would have to be issued to guarantee future Ukrainian neutrality and relative disarmament.
So I don’t understand how you begin your comment with such a “Yes”. I agree with all the rest however.
"don't understand how you begin your comment with…a 'Yes.'"
Idea was, 'Yes, you are right to doubt that hegseth's speech will give Russia enough guarantees.'
I gave reasons why your doubt was well-judged:
it's not just that – as the Russian economy booms, and as Russia's army churns west – obviously Russia won't suddenly agree to a settlement where Ukraine becomes a NATO member…
…the issue is the 'unfinished business' of NATO in Ukraine, and pending Ukraine in NATO, at the root of Russia's invasion.
So Ukraine, which was already broke before the war and is dead broke now, will stay dead broke for decades to come while repaying $350 billion to the US.
Meanwhile, the EU would have to invest an ungodly amount of money to bring Ukraine to a level where they can join the block. They just don't have that kind of money, their citizens are already subjected to unpopular austerity measures and an eroding standard of living. Plus, Trump is browbeating them to increase their military budgets (i.e. buy more American weapons).
Seems to me Trump has just destroyed any hope Ukraine had of not only joining NATO (he said it's out of question), but also joining the EU.
Last time Ukraine had a truly democratic government (2012-14), they rejected the unfair deal demanded by the EU and vowed to stay neutral. They were putsched out by a Nazi coup cross-dressed as "revolution" (Euromaidan) and that was the beginning of the Ukrainian wars (and many other horrors).
The EU has admitted quite lamentable Central-Eastern European states like Romania and Bulgaria in the past (it's part of the new German Östpolitik: cheap labor, white enough). But it seems to me that, for the time being, Ukraine will remain out, just like Montenegro, North Macedonia and Albania have not yet joined the bloc either.
Just now at RT: Putin-Trump summit on the way – Kremlin
> https://www.rt.com/russia/612646-kremlin-prospects-trump-putin/
I wonder if anyone in the Trump administration has taken the time to speak to a geologist or a mining expert about this idiotic plan. Extraction and refining of "rare earths" requires a huge initial capital outlay, one which Ukraine, even before the 2014 coup and civil war, seemed to be incapable of making; how are they going to do it now, especially when most of the identified deposits are in Russian held territory?
The alternative is for the US to make the initial capital outlay, and spend years waiting to get its (mining) investment back, and then many more years to get its "military support" investment back. That's just an absurd plan.
Meanwhile, two huge deposits of lithium (not a "rare earth", but an important element in battery production) have been announced in the USA itself; one in Arkansas, and the other in Nevada; if the USA is going to invest heavily in mining, it makes much more sense to do it here that in Ukraine, Ukraine is a black hole that will never pay back anything, much less new investment.
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/double-decker-special-hysteria-ignites
Any deal with Ukrainian criminals is absurd. You will never get what you bargained for.
Rare earth? It was about democracy, no?
As I understand it, the bulk of those resources are in areas currently controlled by Russia, and if that's the case I doubt they are going to simply walk away from them. Then again, Russia may decide that Greenland (and its resources) is vital to its security and try and buy it out from under Trump's nose 😀
Ukraine's proven reserve of REE's is puny compared to China's.
And who will get the nod to mine and sell them? Our government? Trump? Musk?
It's a ridiculous proposal. China invested an immense sum of money to develop their rare earth mining and refining capability, and are now by far the world's largest, and cheapest, provider of the resource. Ukraine has to start from scratch and Ukraine won't (can't) pay for any of it; so it will be the old US song-and-dance; taxpayers pay for US companies to contract, at absurd, inflated prices, to "develop" the mines and processing plants; then, if and when any tangible revenue above what we have to pay the contractors appears, (after the Ukrainians take their typical cut via graft, bribes, fraud and corruption) it will get split between the Ukrainians and us. We will NEVER see a "profit", especially if the Chinese decide to LOWER the price they sell their market share for, just to squeeze this new endeavour out. And the Chinese can do that, as their fixed costs have been covered long ago.
"China invested…immense…money to develop their rare earth mining and refining capability, and are now by far the world's largest, and cheapest, provider of the resource."
"Provider" – yea, provider to their own EV industry, to build by far the best, cheapest, most electric-fuel-efficient EV's on the planet – as shown by Chinese EVs' enormous gains in Europe in just the last year.
It's been written about a lot, but here's an entertaining overview of China's astounding present and inexorable future domination of the world EV market:
"Chinese EVs OBLIBERATE US Competition" (Breaking Points on Youtube)
Also provider of the resource to most of the world. Rare earths are important, but not the only critical element in EV production; China leads not just in MAKING batteries (because they are also leaders in lithium production, not a rare earth, not even rare at all, yet still China dominates this industry) but also in battery TECHNOLOGY. Also, not only does China mine the most rare earths, they process even more, such that many countries that actually do mine the stuff ship it to China for processing, and the Chinese then sell the processed metals on the world market.
"Also provider of the resource to most of the world…leads not just in MAKING batteries… but also in battery TECHNOLOGY [&] processing even more."
Enlightening – 'specially as I know little about it.
Besides rapid EV export market domination, my linked BP takeaway was where Sagar said:
'And how they did it? – 2 decades ago or so, China's command economy planners dictated 'EV industry creation' – at all levels, you point out…So now it's not just, 'They're ahead now' – it's 'Now and forever – impossible to catch up or compete with.'
Pretty much. While we were wasting trillions bombing goats and funding corruption in Afghanistan and Iraq, China funded mining and processing, EV development, batteries and wind turbines, solar power, high speed rail including mag-lev technologies, major infrastructure projects, super computers, and AI research.