The most important fact about the minerals agreement signed by America and Ukraine is that no one in Kyiv would regard it as an end in itself; it is only a means to the vital objective of giving America a national interest in the existence of Ukraine as a sovereign state.
Donald Trump was never going to support Ukraine against Russia’s onslaught because of his devotion to international law or the principle that big countries cannot be allowed to dismember their neighbours. Nor was Mr Trump likely to be outraged by the spectacle of Vladimir Putin’s forces laying waste to European cities, driving millions from their homes and kidnapping thousands of children. No, the only Trump-friendly argument for backing Ukraine is that America might make money from doing so.
Hence this agreement opens the way for US companies to exploit Ukraine’s critical minerals in partnership with that country. Whether these resources actually exist in sufficient quantities to be commercially viable remains to be seen. There is good reason to doubt that anyone will profit greatly from Ukraine’s natural wealth. But this is irrelevant: the point is that the agreement creates an argument grounded in America’s national interest for Mr Trump to back Ukraine.
It comes at a moment when Putin’s brutal intransigence and his glaring failure to endorse the ceasefire that Ukraine accepted as long ago as March 11 seems to be straining even Mr Trump’s patience. America has thus made conciliatory gestures to Ukraine, including releasing $50 million of arms within hours of the minerals agreement being signed.
All of this amounts to good news, but nothing in the deal gives president Volodymyr Zelensky what he most wants: a clear American security guarantee for Ukraine. Yes, America has said that the “peace process” will be “centred on a free, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine”. True, the Trump administration has finally acknowledged the obvious truth that Russia launched the full-scale invasion. And the ruthlessly exploitative clauses of early versions of the agreement have been excised.
Yet America has still not given a clear pledge to come to Ukraine’s defence if Putin were to invade for a third time. Only with that guarantee would Mr Zelensky be able to sign a peace agreement without fearing that it was merely a pause before yet another Russian attack. The deal is an important step, but not a destination.
The most important fact about the minerals agreement signed by America and Ukraine is that no one in Kyiv would regard it as an end in itself; it is only a means to the vital objective of giving America a national interest in the existence of Ukraine as a sovereign state.
Donald Trump was never going to support Ukraine against Russia’s onslaught because of his devotion to international law or the principle that big countries cannot be allowed to dismember their neighbours. Nor was Mr Trump likely to be outraged by the spectacle of Vladimir Putin’s forces laying waste to European cities, driving millions from their homes and kidnapping thousands of children. No, the only Trump-friendly argument for backing Ukraine is that America might make money from doing so.
Hence this agreement opens the way for US companies to exploit Ukraine’s critical minerals in partnership with that country. Whether these resources actually exist in sufficient quantities to be commercially viable remains to be seen. There is good reason to doubt that anyone will profit greatly from Ukraine’s natural wealth. But this is irrelevant: the point is that the agreement creates an argument grounded in America’s national interest for Mr Trump to back Ukraine.
It comes at a moment when Putin’s brutal intransigence and his glaring failure to endorse the ceasefire that Ukraine accepted as long ago as March 11 seems to be straining even Mr Trump’s patience. America has thus made conciliatory gestures to Ukraine, including releasing $50 million of arms within hours of the minerals agreement being signed.
All of this amounts to good news, but nothing in the deal gives president Volodymyr Zelensky what he most wants: a clear American security guarantee for Ukraine. Yes, America has said that the “peace process” will be “centred on a free, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine”. True, the Trump administration has finally acknowledged the obvious truth that Russia launched the full-scale invasion. And the ruthlessly exploitative clauses of early versions of the agreement have been excised.
Yet America has still not given a clear pledge to come to Ukraine’s defence if Putin were to invade for a third time. Only with that guarantee would Mr Zelensky be able to sign a peace agreement without fearing that it was merely a pause before yet another Russian attack. The deal is an important step, but not a destination.