18 April 2025
SERGIY SYDORENKO, European Pravda
SAUL LOEB, AFP/East News
Trump’s team has finally acknowledged that Ukraine has also suffered significant losses for the sake of global security
Late Thursday evening, Ukraine’s First Deputy Prime Minister Yuliia Svyrydenko and US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent signed the first document within the framework of negotiations on mineral resources – a political memorandum that not only commits both sides to completing the negotiations, but also sets out several positions that the parties have agreed on.
The signing of a document in this form is surprising. It’s just a one-page text, lacking any details, and there’s no real reason why it should have been issued.
Several European Pravda sources have confirmed that the initiative for such a framework agreement came from the Americans. It’s highly likely that Bessent (or even Trump personally) felt it was important to obtain at least some result from the US-Ukraine talks as soon as possible – ideally before Easter – that could be presented as an achievement on the part of the current US administration.
Nevertheless, the memorandum does provide Ukraine with several tactical advantages.
The most notable win is that for the first time, US military aid has been explicitly linked to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, under which Ukraine gave up its arsenal of nuclear weapons.
This clause could prove useful in future negotiations, especially in defending against Trump’s demands that Ukraine “pay back” the aid it has received.
Secondly, the memorandum explicitly states that the future agreement must not conflict with Ukraine’s obligations to the EU (including future accession talks), the IMF and other international partners.
One concern, however, is the extremely short timeline set for concluding the full agreement. European Pravda sources differ in their views on whether the deadline is realistic. The key issue is ensuring Ukraine doesn’t cross any critical red lines in the process.
A deal in a week
European Pravda has covered the emotional – and at times dramatic – negotiations over natural resources between Ukraine and the United States in detail.
What began as an idea supposedly focused on the occupied territories – areas the US would help liberate – has evolved into negotiations on a far broader scale. At times, US proposals have gone
beyond what was acceptable, and the pressure exerted by the American delegation has bordered on blackmail or even crossed that line.
Equally interesting are the shifts with regard to what kind of document the Americans are actually aiming to sign.
Initially, in February, the Trump team proposed that the agreement should be signed in two stages – first a framework memorandum outlining the main parameters, then a detailed text. But in March, Kyiv was abruptly informed that the two-stage idea was being scrapped, and a brand-new version of the detailed agreement was sent to Ukraine. By mid-April the concept had changed again, with the US once more advocating for a two-stage process: first a memorandum, then a full agreement.
A memorandum of intent is exactly what the officials put their signatures to on Thursday evening – a political commitment with no financial details.
The only figures it contains are dates.
Ukraine has agreed that Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal will visit Washington next week “to meet with US Treasury Secretary Bessent and lend high-level support to the conclusion of technical discussions on the terms of an agreement establishing a reconstruction investment fund” (the name agreed on for the minerals deal). The memorandum also expresses an expectation “to report on the progress [made on the text of the agreement] by 26 April 2025, with the aim of signing it as soon as possible”.
These are incredibly tight deadlines.
According to European Pravda’s information, the agreement is currently a long way from being ready for signing. Finalising the negotiations within a week (especially during the Easter holidays) is technically possible, but politically unlikely – unless, of course, one party were to completely surrender its negotiating position, and Ukraine is unlikely to do that after having put up so much resistance during these talks.
The Ukrainian officials interviewed by European Pravda pointed out that next to the provision about these rapid negotiations, there is also a clause stating that this memorandum is “without prejudice to any remaining political or legal procedures required to complete the arrangement”.
In simpler terms, Kyiv understands that this latest deadline will likely be missed as well.
So why sign this document at all? The short answer is: because the US administration needed it for political reasons, and it causes no harm to Ukraine. And that’s absolutely true. There is nothing in the text that Svyrydenko signed that is unacceptable or even dangerous for Ukraine. On the contrary, it contains provisions that clearly benefit Ukraine.
Nukes in exchange for aid?
Although the memorandum lacks detail (which further confirms that negotiations on the main agreement are far from complete), it does establish certain key points.
For Ukraine, it is critically important that any agreement with the United States does not obstruct its future integration into the European Union. This means taking account not only of Ukraine’s current obligations, but also the obligations it will need to undertake during the accession process. It is also essential that any deal with the US does not conflict with Ukraine’s relationships with the IMF and other creditors.
The US Treasury has formally acknowledged this concern in writing.
The US has now promised that in the upcoming negotiations, it will “respect” the need to “avoid conflicts in the drafting of the agreement with Ukraine’s obligations under European Union accession or agreements with international financial institutions and other official creditors”.
Note the wording here: “respect” is not the same as “take into account”.
Rather, this reflects Washington’s recognition that should an unavoidable conflict arise between the US’s plans and Ukraine’s commitments, the minerals agreement simply won’t be signed. For Ukraine, this safeguard appears to be acceptable.
But the main sticking point in the negotiations lies elsewhere, and here there is some good news.
In addition to EU compatibility, Ukraine’s top priority has been to reject Trump’s idea that Ukraine should hand over future profits from its natural resources as payback for past US aid that was provided on a non-repayable basis. President Zelenskyy has repeatedly stated that this is a red line and that Ukraine will not agree to such terms.
The memorandum does not clarify the issue completely.
On the one hand, it contains no mention of compensation, which is a good sign, since such a major issue would normally be addressed directly. On the other hand, US media outlets continue to report on amounts that US officials are claiming Ukraine is expected to repay. The idea that this “compensation” has now been reduced to $90 billion does not make it any more acceptable to Kyiv.
It’s also clear that US officials need some way of explaining to their voters why, contrary to what they previously promised, Ukraine won’t be paying for past aid. This narrative gap is likely what’s keeping the compensation issue alive behind the scenes.
The memorandum signed on Thursday opens the door to this.
For the first time, the document puts US assistance to Ukraine and Ukraine’s contribution to global security, made 30 years ago under US pressure, on the same footing by referencing the Budapest Memorandum.
The memorandum states: “The United States and Ukraine recognise the contribution that Ukraine has made to strengthening international peace and security by voluntarily giving up the world’s third-largest nuclear weapons arsenal.” Notably, this wording appears almost immediately after a mention of the “significant financial and material support” that the US has provided to Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022.
At the very least, this clause gives Ukraine a new advantage in the negotiations.
Want compensation for US aid?
Then let’s calculate the “market value” of the 1,500-2,000 nuclear warheads of strategic weapons, and the even greater number of tactical warheads (the exact numbers remain unknown), along with the 176 intercontinental ballistic missiles and dozens of strategic bombers that Ukraine relinquished under the Budapest Memorandum.
Alternatively, we can agree that both the US and Ukraine have contributed to global security, and neither side will be demanding financial compensation for that.
Hopefully the US understands this too. And the fact that they have agreed to include this clause in the memorandum suggests that the most toxic demands in the minerals deal may have already been consigned to the past.