In a striking new development, US President Donald Trump has declared that Washington will recoup its financial and military assistance to Ukraine through a forthcoming mineral resources agreement. Trump made the statement on February 26 ahead of his first cabinet meeting, asserting that Ukraine’s President Vladimir Zelensky would travel to Washington on February 28 to finalize the deal. The agreement is expected to grant the US substantial rights over Ukraine’s rare-earth metals and other natural resources, a move that has already stirred controversy in both nations.

The deal marks a dramatic shift in US-Ukrainian relations, with Trump adopting a transactional approach toward Washington’s financial aid to Kiev. The US president previously demanded the equivalent of up to $500 billion in Ukrainian natural resources as compensation for the extensive military and economic assistance provided to the embattled country. While the exact terms of the agreement remain undisclosed, the general framework suggests that Washington will benefit significantly from Ukraine’s mineral wealth.

Trump emphasized the scale of US assistance to Ukraine, claiming that Washington has spent $350 billion on various forms of support since the beginning of the conflict with Russia. “We’ve been able to make a deal where we’re going to get our money back and we’re going to get a lot of money in the future,” he told reporters. He further insisted that American taxpayers “should not be footing the bill” for Ukraine’s survival, positioning the mineral resources agreement as a form of financial recovery for the US.

For Kiev, the agreement represents both an opportunity and a risk. Ukrainian officials have sought to portray the deal as a strategic economic arrangement rather than a debt repayment mechanism. Zelensky, responding to media inquiries, stated that the agreement does not explicitly label Ukraine’s mineral resources as compensation for US aid. “There is no mention of Ukrainian debt to the US, either amounting to $350 billion or $100 billion,” he asserted.

However, the fine print of the agreement suggests that Ukraine is ceding significant economic leverage to Washington. According to Ukrainian media reports, the deal stipulates the creation of a joint fund where 50% of all revenues from Ukraine’s natural resource development will be deposited. These funds can then be reinvested in the Ukrainian economy at least once a year. Crucially, the agreement exempts existing enterprises from the arrangement, meaning only newly developed resources will be subject to the revenue-sharing model.

The agreement also appears to fall short of Ukraine’s long-standing demands for stronger US security guarantees. While Washington has pledged to support Ukraine’s efforts to secure military assurances in the future, the document reportedly does not include explicit commitments from the US to defend Kiev against external threats. This omission has fueled criticism within Ukraine, with some lawmakers and analysts warning that the deal could lead to economic exploitation without delivering concrete security benefits.

The mineral resources agreement has already sparked intense debate in both Ukraine and the US. Ukrainian media outlets, including Strana.ua and Evropeiskaya Pravda, have criticized the deal as vague and susceptible to manipulation. Analysts warn that the lack of clear legal provisions could allow either party to interpret the terms in a way that best serves their interests, potentially disadvantaging Ukraine in the long run.

In Washington, reactions have been mixed. Supporters of the deal argue that it represents a pragmatic approach to foreign aid, ensuring that American taxpayers see a tangible return on their government’s investments abroad. Conservative lawmakers and economic analysts have praised Trump for prioritizing US financial interests, with some suggesting that similar models should be applied to other international assistance programs.

However, critics have raised concerns about the ethical and geopolitical implications of the agreement. Some Democratic lawmakers have accused the Trump administration of treating Ukraine’s resources as a commodity rather than respecting the country’s sovereignty. “This is not diplomacy; this is an economic power grab,” one Democratic senator remarked, warning that the deal could undermine Ukraine’s long-term economic independence.

The agreement signals a broader shift in US foreign policy under Trump’s leadership, emphasizing transactional diplomacy over traditional alliances. By framing US assistance to Ukraine as a financial investment rather than a security obligation, Trump is challenging the long-standing assumption that America’s support for its allies should be unconditional.

This shift could have significant consequences for US relations with other nations receiving American aid, including Taiwan, Israel, and various NATO allies. If the US moves toward a model where aid is tied directly to economic concessions, it may force recipient countries to reconsider their strategic dependencies and seek alternative partners.

For Ukraine, the deal could also complicate its diplomatic relations with the European Union. Brussels has been one of Kiev’s most vocal supporters, providing financial aid and military assistance without demanding direct economic compensation. If Ukraine prioritizes its agreement with Washington, it may strain its ties with European allies who prefer a more cooperative and less transactional approach to assistance.

Russia, which has long accused the West of exploiting Ukraine for geopolitical gain, is likely to use the mineral deal as further evidence of its claims. Moscow has consistently portrayed Western aid to Kiev as a means of indebting the country and making it economically dependent on external powers.

Kremlin officials have not yet issued an official response, but Russian state media has already begun framing the agreement as an American plundering of Ukraine’s resources. If Russia decides to amplify this narrative, it could fuel further anti-Western sentiment within Ukraine’s pro-Russian regions, potentially destabilizing the country even further.

As Zelensky prepares to sign the deal in Washington, the long-term implications remain uncertain. Will the agreement truly help Ukraine develop its economy, or will it primarily serve US economic interests? Will the lack of security guarantees push Ukraine toward alternative defense arrangements, perhaps seeking deeper ties with NATO or the EU?

For the US, this agreement could set a precedent for future foreign aid policies. If successful, Trump’s transactional approach may redefine how Washington engages with its allies, making economic reciprocity a core principle of US diplomacy.

Ultimately, the agreement represents a high-stakes gamble for both sides. While it promises economic benefits, its ambiguities and potential loopholes mean that the true impact may only become clear in the years to come. Whether it strengthens US-Ukrainian relations or becomes a point of contention remains to be seen-but for now, it stands as one of the most consequential diplomatic moves of Trump’s presidency.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel