By: Andrew Bogrand - senior policy advisor for Natural Resource Justice at Oxfam, where he focuses on civic space, inequality, and corruption

Eleven years ago, the Russian Federation seized Ukrainian territory by force. Three years ago, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Today, Ukraine faces a new threat to its sovereignty:  President Trump’s demand that the country hand over a significant amount of its mineral wealth or face the prospect of future Russian intervention without American support. The proposed “agreement” has been met with skepticism from mining experts, pushback from Kyiv, and even a counter offer from the Kremlin. Staggeringly, this “very big deal” appears to have ignored the ambitions of the Ukrainian people altogether –and yet has been met with bipartisan acclaim in the U.S. 

Instead of creating an economic bond that would hold two nations together, this mineral deal will be a fiasco for Americans and Ukrainians. A deal done through coercion, rather than equitable negotiation with community consultation, will not only worsen Ukraine’s humanitarian emergency and long-term development efforts; it will also fail to strengthen America’s mineral supply chain.

President Trump is correct that the U.S. will need critical minerals – including lithium, graphite, and rare earths – which will power the energy and security technology of the future. But through Oxfam’s decades of work in mining communities, we know firsthand that deals shaped without community consent are destined to fail. When people are unable to shape how (or if) mining proceeds in their backyards, companies and governments bear the cost of protests, work stoppages, and lawsuits. 

Even in the best circumstances, mining deals routinely fall apart. In conflict zones like Ukraine, all bets are off. Mining is capital-intensive and often dangerous work. Land disputes are common, and even well-designed projects can undermine human rights activists, host communities, Indigenous groups, and local small-scale miners. Moreover, profits are by no means guaranteed, especially not in the short-term: only 30 percent of Ukraine’s critical minerals are in operational mines. For the remainder, it will take an average of 18 years before  production is possible. 

Perhaps given these constraints, the latest -- “bigger, better” -- version of Trump’s mineral deal encompasses other natural resources, including oil and gas. Still, the underlying problems will likely remain: a lack of consultation, let alone consent, and gun-barrel diplomacy is no way to secure a supply chain or recoup costs. Erik Prince, the military contractor and shadow advisor to Trump, proposed funding the war in Afghanistanthrough mining, which amounted to nothing. The Kremlin experimented with a mining -for-fighting model with the Wagner group, which was disavowed after a coup attempt in Russia.  In Ukraine, any unchecked rush to extract minerals without safeguards is all but certain to fail; worse, it is assured to exacerbate corruption and social conflict, further undermining the profitability of the private sector and the accountability of the state to its people. In short, it would demolish the foundations for a stable, prosperous Ukraine.

There is a better way forward. First, the U.S. and Ukrainian governments should be realistic about the short-term benefits of mining cooperation and appreciate that developing Ukraine’s natural resources is a years-long endeavor. It will not create the kind of short-term bond that Ukraine requires for its security. Rather, with an estimated $524 billion recovery bill, these resources would be better utilized as part of a long-term domestic fund for reconstruction and redevelopment. The Ukrainian government should reject any slapdash wealth transfer that might undermine its people’s immediate humanitarian needs and future political and economic success. 

Second, the U.S. government should focus on building out a resilient mineral supply chain, which includes ensuring that local communities have a real say in whether and how mining projects move forward and investing in a more business-friendly environment. The mining industry itself, which has taken recent steps to improve its social performance and human rights commitments, should advocate for more rational policies in conflict-affected countries like Ukraine and reject this administration’s gutting of anti-corruption measuresglobally.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, policymakers should pursue a just and sustainable peace that recognizes Ukraine’s territorial integrity and ensures the safety of the Ukrainian people.
This latest round of “mineral diplomacy” reflects a new geopolitical reality that will be shaped by what lies beneath. Diplomacy, however, requires respect, engagement, and tact.  Should the U.S. relationship with Ukraine veer toward “mineral colonialism” -- shaped by subservience, arrogance, and domination without consideration for the Ukrainian people -- neither side will win.