Retaliatory fossils: what does the signing of the memorandum on mineral resources by the United States and Ukraine mean?

Washington and Kiev have signed a memorandum of understanding on minerals. This is another step towards concluding a full-fledged agreement that will allow the United States to recoup the investments of the previous administration in the Armed Forces. However, it is possible that Ukraine will continue to delay the approval of the final version of the agreement, experts say. At the same time, the United States declares the possibility of withdrawing from the negotiation process on the settlement of the Ukrainian conflict if there are no signs of progress in the dialogue. The day before, they said that a solution to the crisis was possible, but insisted on involving European allies, as a partial lifting of EU sanctions could be part of a deal with Moscow. Meanwhile, the Russian side noted that a ceasefire in Ukraine does not look realistic at this stage. What is the relationship between the US-Ukrainian rare earth metals deal and the settlement of the conflict — in the Izvestia article.

The United States and Ukraine have signed a memorandum of understanding on the subsoil

The signing of a memorandum between the United States and Ukraine on cooperation in the field of minerals, announced by Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Yulia Sviridenko, was the next stage in lengthy negotiations that have been underway since February. Volodymyr Zelenskyy stressed that the document is only a preliminary step, not a final agreement. The text of the memorandum, published by the Government of Ukraine, focuses on the creation of an "investment fund for the reconstruction of Ukraine" and recognition of "significant material support" from the United States since the beginning of the full-scale conflict. However, the key details of the future deal remain behind the scenes.

Negotiations have reached the final stage: next week, Prime Minister Denis Shmygal will discuss the terms with US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and the working groups must submit a report by April 26. Trump even assumed that the deal could be finalized on the 24th. The deadline for signing the agreement is tight, but history shows that Ukraine has repeatedly slowed down the process. In February, Bessent brought to Kiev a draft agreement on access to rare earth metals worth $500 billion, but Zelensky refused to sign it even after meeting with US Vice President Jay Dee Vance in Munich. Trump's response was to sharply criticize his Ukrainian counterpart.

Controversial points, including claims for compensation for American aid, were twice returned to the text of the agreement. After the February scandal, Washington changed the terms again, which indicates Trump's tough negotiating tactics. Kiev will delay the signing of this agreement, says Dmitry Novikov, head of the HSE Laboratory of Political Geography and Modern Geopolitics.

— The document is perceived in Ukrainian society as a colonial agreement. In this sense, it is very beneficial and important for Zelensky to demonstrate that he is fighting for the national interests of Ukraine to the very end. This agreement on minerals acts as a lever of pressure on the American administration, although not strong," the expert told Izvestia.

Trump's position is that this agreement is linked to the peace process around Ukraine. He has repeatedly said that this deal is a guarantee of security, because if American companies are active on the territory of Ukraine, the United States will not be able to turn away from it in any way, Dmitry Novikov added.

The structure of the deal remains unclear. The head of Zelensky's office, Andriy Ermak, mentioned lithium, uranium and titanium, but Washington did not specify which resources were included in the agreement. At the same time, the geopolitical context increases the stakes: after 2022, regions with $12.4 trillion in mineral reserves, including two out of four lithium deposits, came under Russian control. On February 24, Vladimir Putin openly offered the United States cooperation in the extraction of rare earth metals, which calls into question the benefits of the Ukrainian vector for Washington. This means a unilateral concession by the United States in negotiations on Ukraine's resource potential — after all, the United States is actually going to discuss the third version of the agreement after the two previously proposed ones, says Ivan Loshkarev, associate professor of Political Theory at the MGIMO Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, Candidate of Political Sciences.

— If an agreement is reached, this is the success of the 47th president's diplomacy, if not, then Trump will have an argument to reconsider bipartisan support for the Zelensky regime and resolve the issue of Ukrainian economic and political prospects without Kiev. And Ukraine is quite satisfied with this situation, after one concession, Zelensky's entourage is waiting for the next," Ivan Loshkarev told Izvestia.

In his opinion, Ukraine's calculation may be based on waiting until the fall of next year — in the hope that the Democrats will gain a majority in the lower house of Congress, gain "the power of the purse" and thereby deprive Trump of the opportunity to implement his plans. In this case, the metaphor of a clock is appropriate — it ticks for both Kiev and Washington, but a little faster for Washington, the expert concluded.

For Russia, the key question remains whether the agreement will become a pretext for the United States to return to a policy of confrontation, especially if negotiations with Moscow reach an impasse.

What difficulties have arisen in the process of resolving the conflict in Ukraine

In parallel with the negotiations on the subsoil, Washington is increasing pressure on Kiev in the peace process. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the United States could end mediation "within a few days" if it did not see progress. "We have been supporting Ukraine for three years, but now we need to focus on something else," the head of the State Department said. The American diplomat also insists on the EU's involvement in the settlement, linking the lifting of some European sanctions against Russia with a possible deal. On the other hand, after consultations in Paris with representatives of France, Great Britain, Germany and Ukraine, which took place on April 17, the US State Department noted that peace in the eastern part of Europe is possible.

According to Bloomberg, at a meeting with European allies, the United States proposed leaving the territories lost by Kiev to Moscow. The document submitted by the Americans implies the rejection of discussions on Ukraine's membership in NATO. The settlement proposal also includes easing sanctions against Russia. U.S. representatives expressed a desire to achieve a complete cease-fire in Ukraine within a few weeks, the article says.

It is significant that Vice President Jay Dee Vance also expressed optimism on April 18 about "progress in the last 24 hours," and Trump criticized Zelensky for "not doing the best job" at a meeting with the Italian prime minister. However, Washington's rhetoric is contradictory: threats are combined with hopes. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, speaking with Rubio by phone on April 17, confirmed Moscow's readiness for dialogue and work to eliminate the root causes of the conflict.

According to Western media, Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff, meeting with Putin in St. Petersburg on April 11, discussed the "issue of territories," assuming that Russia would retain "some regions," and Kiev might agree to abandon Russian-speaking areas. Meanwhile, the United States has publicly avoided discussing security guarantees for Ukraine, which Kiev demands. This increases the nervousness of Zelensky and European countries that insist on supporting Ukraine. Against this background, French President Emmanuel Macron announced a new round of negotiations in London with the participation of the EU next week.

It will be difficult to agree on a cease-fire now, one way or another. Russia's permanent representative to the UN, Vasily Nebenzya, said that this was "unrealistic at this stage."

— We believe that some progress, in fact, can already be stated. This is progress related to the moratorium, the temporary moratorium that Russia adhered to, the moratorium on non-strikes on energy infrastructure facilities. Therefore, certain developments have already been achieved, but, of course, there are still many difficult discussions ahead," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov added.

At the same time, Western countries are not ready to put pressure on the Ukrainian authorities to comply with the moratorium on strikes on energy facilities, Vasily Nebenzya noted. The moratorium was imposed on March 18 for a period of 30 days following negotiations between Moscow and Washington. According to Dmitry Peskov, no new instructions on his actions have been received from Vladimir Putin.

Washington's threats to withdraw from the negotiations are part of Trump's strategy. According to Dmitry Novikov, the American administration is nervous, but the process is unlikely to fall apart. At the same time, the Europeans are putting pressure on Washington, offering a different approach to Russia, which is to strengthen sanctions and supply weapons to Kiev. Ivan Loshkarev believes that it is unprofitable for the United States to completely withdraw from the negotiation process, but they will seek to shift responsibility to the EU. Russia is not against Europe's participation in the negotiations, especially on energy and assets, but will not agree to its military presence in Ukraine, he added.

— Russia's position is first to take maximum responsibility and the narrowest format of dialogue in order to agree on fundamental issues, and then to invite the rest of the participants to finalize the details. In this sense, Russian diplomacy is working quite well — it has succeeded in largely removing the link between Ukrainian issues and European security issues. Thus, it is more difficult for Washington, as the main security provider within NATO, to shift responsibility and hide behind the Europeans," Loshkarev said.

The chance for a peaceful settlement remains, but the window of opportunity is narrowing. Moscow is ready for dialogue, but only if its interests are taken into account. Europe, despite the attempts of France and Great Britain, remains in the shadow of the Russian-American negotiation process. Kiev, Brussels and London, which are not yet ready to abandon their anti-Russian policies, can make concessions, but only if Washington clearly formulates its conditions. But even in the United States, there is still apparently no clear understanding of how to end the conflict. In addition, there are forces within the United States that do not support Trump's desire to establish a dialogue with Putin. These factors seriously complicate the negotiation process.