Evaluating the US proposal: risks, benefits, and Ukraine’s strategic response

From the good news – negotiations are ongoing.

From the bad news – the terms are worsening.

Without access to the original agreements under discussion, I can only rely on the available information online.

I tried to analyze the situation:

On February 22, 2025, the US presented Ukraine with a revised draft agreement on access to Ukrainian mineral resources. This was a response to Kyiv’s previous rejection and an attempt by the Trump administration to accelerate the end of the war.

The analysis is based on fresh reports from The New York Times (NYT), Reuters, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), and other sources published today, as well as previous statements from the parties involved.

The previous US proposals (February 12 and 20) included access to 50% of revenues (!) from Ukrainian resources for $500 billion. These were rejected by Zelensky due to the lack of security guarantees and excessive demands.

($500 billion does not refer to the estimated value of the resources but rather to Ukraine’s projected revenues from their extraction and use, potentially including processing.)

The new negotiations in Riyadh and Keith Kellogg’s visit to Kyiv (February 19–21) led to a revision of the terms, which Trump aims to finalize by the end of February.

Today’s draft is the harshest yet and is linked to pressure on Ukraine through threats to disconnect Starlink and reduce aid.

What exactly is the US proposing on February 22, 2025:

1. Creation of a fund (A fund under US control (!) worth $500 billion, which will be 100% owned by the US.

(100% American ownership)

Ukraine will contribute 66% of revenues from mineral resources (previously 50%), while the US will contribute 33%, counting the supplied weapons as an “investment.”
(In reality, the US is not making any direct financial contributions to the fund.)

State revenues from minerals (lithium, titanium, uranium), oil, gas, ports, and “other infrastructure” will flow into this fund.

The state currently receives three types of revenues from mineral resources:  

– Fees for access to mineral deposits  

– Royalties (partially allocated to local budgets—hello, communities!))  

– Taxes from companies engaged in extraction and processing  

2. New clause  

66% of revenues from territories currently occupied by Russia (e.g., Zaporizhzhia, Kherson regions) will also go into the fund after their liberation.  

3. Troop deployment  

The US proposes deploying troops at Ukrainian resource deposits to “protect investments” after an agreement with Russia (WSJ).  

(This most likely refers to private American military companies.)  

4. Security guarantees  

Only vague wording about “economic partnership as a guarantee of peace” without any mention of NATO or specific commitments (Reuters, February 22).  

5. Pressure and deadlines  

The agreement must be signed by the end of February 22 (WSJ), or the US threatens to disconnect Starlink and halt arms supplies (Reuters, citing an administration source).  

(The day is almost over. Poland has already stated that they finance Starlink and it cannot be shut down.)

6. Trump’s assessment  

Trump called this a “compensation for the $350 billion in aid” (Fox News, February 21), though the actual amount is $119 billion (Kiel Institute).

How reasonable is this proposal?  

1. Disproportion  

The demand for $500 billion is four times (!) higher than the actual aid provided ($119 billion), and the requirement for 66% of resource revenues, including from occupied territories, makes the deal even more burdensome than the previous 50%. This resembles a contribution rather than a partnership (EADaily, February 17).  

2. Lack of guarantees  

Without clear security commitments (NATO membership, permanent troop presence), Ukraine loses control over its assets without protection from Russia, which contradicts its national interests (CNN, February 22).  

3. Unrealistic terms  

40% of Ukraine’s resources (lithium in Donetsk region, gas in Crimea) are currently under Russian control.  

The US offers no plan for their return, only “future revenues,” which significantly reduces the deal’s practical value (DW, February 9).  

4. Comparison  

According to The Telegraph (February 17), these demands exceed World War I reparations when adjusted for inflation.  

Even the revised 25–30% proposal (February 20) was less burdensome than this one.  

5. Conclusion  

The proposal is highly unreasonable due to excessive demands, lack of guarantees, and pressure on Ukraine during wartime.  

It resembles economic exploitation rather than a mutually beneficial agreement.

EU reaction:  

– EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas sharply criticized the US proposal on February 22:  

  “Russia gets territories, the US gets resources, and Europe pays for peace? This is unacceptable.” (Reuters)  

  She called for the “mobilization of forces” and “massive defense of Europe.”  

– Scholz called the proposal “selfish” and stressed that Ukraine needs resources for reconstruction (DW, February 22).  

– Macron proposed a peacekeeping mission as an alternative to US troops at resource sites (NYT, February 21).  

The EU seeks to maintain influence in the region, prevent a deal behind Kyiv’s back, and counter US disengagement from NATO (World Socialist Web Site, February 17).  

Europeans view the proposal as a threat to their €267 billion investments in Ukraine (Kiel Institute).  

The EU is preparing a €700 billion package for Ukraine (Reuters, February 19) and is even considering sanctions against American companies (!!!) if the deal undermines European interests (WSJ, February 22).  

The EU opposes the US proposal, seeing it as an attempt by Trump to shift the costs onto Europe, and is pushing for an alternative support strategy for Kyiv.

Ukraine’s position  

1. Official reaction  

   – Zelensky stated on February 22: “We will not sign an agreement without security and fairness.” (ABC News)  

   – He called the terms “harsher than before” and insists on negotiations with EU participation.  

   – Parliament Speaker Ruslan Stefanchuk confirmed that legal analysis will begin on February 24, but ratification is unlikely without changes.  

2. Motivation  

   – Ukraine seeks to use its resources as leverage for long-term Western support, but not at the cost of sovereignty or the loss of occupied territories (Reuters, February 7).  

   – Zelensky’s high approval rating (57%) allows him to resist pressure, but rejecting the deal could come at a high cost.  

3. Counterproposal  

   – Kyiv proposes 15% of revenues over 10 years, EU involvement, and clear security guarantees (ABC News, February 22).  

4. Risks for Ukraine  

   Economic loss:  

   – 66% of resource revenues amounting to $500 billion would weaken the budget (Ukraine’s total 2025 budget spending is ~$100 billion, leaving no funds for reconstruction.  

   – Estimated economic damage: $500 billion–$1 trillion.  

5. Security vulnerability:  

   – Without guarantees, the deal won’t stop Russia from launching new attacks, and US troops at resource sites could become targets (CSIS, February 2025). 

6. Political pressure:  

   – The threat to cut off Starlink and weapons (Reuters, February 22) could cripple Ukraine’s Armed Forces, forcing Zelensky to give in (but screw that).  

7. Public resistance:  

   – Control over natural resources is protected by Ukraine’s Constitution (Article 13), and any deal handing them over risks mass protests, further weakening the government.

But we also need to look at the benefits for Ukraine (if there are any).  

1. Short-term aid:  

   The preservation of Starlink and $50 billion per year in weapons (Reuters, February 11) allow Ukraine to hold the front.  

2. Investments:  

   Cooperation with the US could accelerate resource extraction by attracting technology and capital (CBC News, February 13). However, there are no details. The investment agreement contains nothing. To generate revenue from natural resources, investments must be made, and conditions must be created for investors.  

3. Geopolitical signal:  

   The agreement will tie the US to Ukraine, potentially deterring Russia (NATO Energy Security Center, 2024).  

Overall assessment  

– Adequacy: The proposal from February 22 is the harshest version, focused on US benefits and failing to meet Ukraine’s security and fairness needs. It is closer to blackmail than partnership.  

– Ukraine’s position: Kyiv is resisting, offering a more reasonable compromise (15% with guarantees) but is under pressure due to dependence on the US.  

– Risks vs. Benefits:  

  – Risks (loss of resources, weak security, protests) significantly (!!!) outweigh benefits (temporary aid, investments) unless the agreement is revised.

Conclusions and recommendations  

– The new US proposal from February 22 appears to be an attempt by Trump to exploit the war for economic gain, disregarding Ukraine’s strategic interests.  

For Kyiv, the optimal course of action is:  

– Postpone signing until security guarantees are included (similar to NATO or a bilateral pact).  

– Reduce the US share to 15–20% over 10 years, with EU involvement as a balancing factor.  

– Prepare for a potential Starlink shutdown, by activating alternative communication channels (which exist).  

Without changes, the deal poses the risk of economic colonization and weakening Ukraine’s position in the war.  

Read, draw conclusions, spread the word!  

The most important thing is not to remain silent—Trump and the US must feel our unity and determination!

Anatoliy Amelin

Tags: Analytics Business Ukraine USA