His recent bold requests for military assistance in recent news about the still-ongoing war in Ukraine made former President Donald Trump news again. Trump has signaled that Ukraine will have to grant the United States significant compensation in terms of access to its vast natural and energy resources. This article will discuss the implications of Trump’s requests, the nature of resources he requests access to, and the context of the larger relationship between the U.S. and Ukraine.
Trump’s compensation demands
Trump’s demand that America be repaid $500 billion in Ukraine’s natural resources for providing military aid has been met with skepticism both in and out of America. Trump openly stated that Ukraine has rare earth elements and other vital minerals, and he wants these used to balance U.S. expenses on military aid.
In a television interview, Trump stated, “We’re spending hundreds of billions of dollars. They have very valuable rare earth elements. I want to make certain about these rare earths, and they are willing to do that”. The tone of business here is a change in attitude towards military assistance from purely an altruistic gesture to a business-like transaction.
The wealth of Ukraine: Rare earth elements and more
Ukraine is richly endowed with natural resources, such as:
- Rare earth elements: They are critical in numerous high-technology uses, e.g., electronics, solar energy technologies, and defense technology.
- Oil and gas reserves: Ukraine is endowed with vast reserves that are yet to be tapped to achieve the vision of becoming energy and economically independent.
- Agricultural resources: With fertile soil covering more than a fifth of the entire world agricultural lands, Ukraine contains massive grain mass production.
- Mineral deposits: Ukraine not only has rare earth elements, but also other minerals such as lithium and gallium that are crucial to contemporary technologies.
Trump’s vision is that the presence of such resources can be framed as part of a greater deal under which Ukraine would be effectively “paying back” the U.S. for its military support since the beginning of the Russian aggression in 2022.
Economic colonization or strategic partnership?
Trump’s requirements have been referred to as economic colonization of Ukraine by critics. The terms proposed would, in reality, make the U.S. master of the majority of the economic assets of Ukraine for eternity. This has been compared to reparations demanded of defeated countries after war, and there is doubt about the morality and viability of such demands.
The proposed deal has reportedly failed to include mineral rights alone but was extended to port access and infrastructure, giving the U.S. even more control over the Ukrainian economy. These terms have been described as more harsh than those imposed on Germany after World War I, a precedent that has sent shivers down global relationships.
The response of Ukraine
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been cautious regarding Trump’s proposal. While recognizing the importance of Western support to defend Ukraine’s sovereignty, he has also emphasized that any conditions reached must ensure Ukraine’s independence and economic sovereignty and in recent news the proposal was rejected by the Ukrainian President.
Furthermore, inside Ukraine, there are concerns regarding the long-term implications of such an agreement. Experts have argued that while investment in mining would be a welcome development in the post-war context, linking military aid to resource access would compromise Ukraine’s sovereignty and lead to American interest dependence.
The broader context of the U.S.-Ukraine relations
U.S. relations with Ukraine have been entirely different since the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the subsequent battle in Eastern Ukraine. The Biden administration had justified military aid to be required for Ukrainian defense as well as for European stability overall. Trump’s transactional approach is the exact opposite of this viewpoint.
Under Biden, military support was presented as a moral duty to protect an ally from aggression; Trump’s proposals suggest a more mercenary worldview where help is conditional upon material returns. This shift raises questions regarding the future direction of U.S. foreign policy towards threatened allies.
Trump’s insistence on extracting Ukraine’s natural resources in the form of rewards for providing military assistance is a radical break with the power dynamics of international politics. While highlighting the geostrategic value of Ukraine’s mineral wealth, it also invokes questions of morality around economic exploitation during war.
Read more: Who is Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister negotiating with Marco Rubio to end the war in Ukraine
Read more: What is going on in the Russia-U.S. peace talks over Ukraine and why don’t they want the European Union to be present?
