As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine enters its fourth year, Ukraine’s critical mineral resources, which were always one of the considerations in the conflict, are drawing greater attention.
U.S. President Trump has made it clear he wants access to Ukraine’s wealth of critical minerals in exchange for further U.S. support for Ukraine, but Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said he cannot accept the terms Trump is offering.
The negotiation became a diplomatic crisis at the Munich Security Conference when President Zelensky rejected a $500 billion U.S. minerals-for-aid proposal, and Trump responded with blistering criticism of Zelensky.
The original draft of the U.S. proposal, delivered just hours before U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s arrival in Kyiv, demanded 50% of Ukraine’s mineral revenues and placed the agreement under New York court jurisdiction, according to NBC news. Zelensky’s rejection infuriated President Trump, who publicly accused the Ukrainian leader of “breaking” a deal that had yet to be signed, BBC reported.
Behind the scenes, negotiations have continued. Sources close to the talks revealed that the U.S. has presented an “improved” draft removing contentious provisions, The Wall Street Journal reported. Several of Zelensky’s advisers have reportedly urged him to consider the revised proposal, warning that rejection could further strain relations with Washington at a critical moment in the war.
While the Biden Administration clearly backed Ukraine in its war against Russia, the Trump Administration has expressed support for Russia’s territorial demands and a hesitancy to offer further military support to Ukraine.
For Zelensky, the challenge is maintaining Ukraine’s independence while securing support for both immediate defense and future reconstruction. Recent meetings with U.S. envoy Keith Kellogg suggest potential progress. “Ukraine is ready for a strong, effective investment and security,” Zelensky was quoted as saying, though he insists any deal must include robust security guarantees.
Trump administration transactional
The Trump administration’s approach remains transactional. National Security Adviser Mike Waltz argued that U.S. co-investment in Ukraine’s natural resources would provide better security than “another pallet of ammunition.” This stance has drawn criticism for potentially forcing Ukraine into an unfavorable agreement while Russia maintains its territorial gains.
Behind Washington’s pursuit of Ukrainian minerals lies an urgent strategic imperative: breaking China’s stranglehold on the critical minerals that are essential for electric vehicles and other renewable energy technology. China currently processes 90% of the world’s rare earth elements and dominates the refining of lithium and cobalt. Ukraine’s resources could offer the West an alternative, particularly given the country’s proximity to European markets.
Before Russia’s 2022 invasion, Ukraine had registered 20,000 mineral deposits, with 8,700 proven sites containing 117 of the world’s 120 most used metals and minerals, according to the Institute for Energy Research. The country holds Europe’s largest uranium deposits, vast lithium reserves estimated at 500,000 tons, and one-fifth of the world’s graphite, the Institute said.
Most of these deposits lie within the “Ukrainian shield”—a mineral-rich belt stretching from Luhansk and Donetsk through Zaporizhzhia and Dnipropetrovsk to Kharkiv. Before the war, Ukraine supplied 90% of the specialized neon gas needed for U.S. semiconductor manufacturing and was poised to become a major supplier of materials essential for green energy technologies, per The Eurasian Times.
Ukraine’s mineral wealth targeted by Russia
Moscow’s territorial acquisitions follow a calculated pattern. The regions under Russian occupation—Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Crimea—contain an estimated $12.5 trillion in mineral and energy resources, according to France 24. Russia now controls more than half of Ukraine’s coal reserves, 80% of its Black Sea gas deposits, and significant portions of its lithium and rare earth elements.
This resource grab extends beyond minerals. Ukraine has traditionally served as a critical transit hub for Russian fossil fuels, with nearly 24,000 miles of pipelines carrying gas to European markets, according to the Center for Strategic & International Studies. Donbas region itself represents more than an economic prize—it’s Ukraine’s industrial heartland, historically producing everything from steel to agricultural products that once generated billions in export revenue.
The outcome of the U.S. and Russian quest for critical minerals will reverberate far beyond Ukraine’s borders. It will influence Europe’s energy independence, the pace of global green technology adoption, and the balance of power between East and West. Whether this leads to a more resilient Europe or deeper dependencies may define not just the resolution of the Ukraine conflict, but the future of global resource politics for decades to come.
Although Ukraine’s stability, as well as its supply of critical minerals, are vital for the European Union, the EU finds itself increasingly marginalized in these negotiations. European officials have expressed alarm that Washington and Moscow are making decisions about their industrial future without consulting EU leaders.
