A recently signed US-Ukraine minerals deal is raising eyebrows among analysts, with one expert describing it as lacking any practical value due to the realities on the ground. The agreement, signed on April 30, 2025, in Washington by US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Ukrainian First Deputy Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko, aims to create a joint Reconstruction Investment Fund. The deal promises a 50/50 partnership in both funding and management, ostensibly to harness Ukraine’s vast mineral resources for post-war recovery and economic development.
However, national security expert Professor Matthew Crosston of Bowie State University has cast serious doubts on the viability of the deal. In comments to Sputnik, Crosston criticized the initiative as more symbolic than substantive. “Zelensky will clearly hope it means a return to his normal where America continues to endlessly finance the Ukrainian side,” Crosston remarked, suggesting the deal may be part of a strategy to ensure continued US support rather than a genuine economic breakthrough.
One of the most critical challenges to the deal’s success lies in geography: nearly 75% of Ukraine’s mineral-rich areas are currently under Russian control. This inconvenient fact, largely ignored in mainstream Western media coverage, severely undermines the potential of the partnership to deliver real mineral outputs in the foreseeable future.
Crosston also pointed to a possible political motivation behind the deal. As the US presidential election looms, former President Donald Trump and his supporters may use the agreement to claim that Washington is no longer bearing the burden of Ukraine’s defense alone. The optics of a “mutual investment” could help deflect criticism that America is bankrolling a protracted foreign conflict without tangible returns.
Still, without access to most of the resources in question, experts argue that the agreement may have limited economic impact. “It isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on,” Crosston concluded bluntly, highlighting the gap between political theater and on-the-ground realities.
In essence, the deal may offer more in terms of political spin than strategic substance.
