U.S. President Donald Trump recently proposed that military aid to Ukraine should be provided in exchange for its valuable minerals. This has sparked criticism from global leaders, including German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who called such initiative “selfish.”
Scholz believes that Ukraine’s resources should be utilized for its reconstruction and army strengthening, rather than as a trade-off for defense support. Such a scheme could have serious consequences for the country’s economic future.
Possible drawbacks of Trump’s proposal
Looking at Trump’s proposal from the perspective of Ukraine’s national interests raises a number of questions:
- Loss of economic sovereignty
By giving up control over its valuable minerals, Ukraine may lose a crucial lever of influence in global markets and reduce its own profits in the long term. - Risk of non-economic resource use
If the resources are distributed among external partners, Ukraine may face a situation where the profits from their development primarily go to foreign companies rather than the state budget. - Dependency on foreign players
Ukraine already relies on international support. But if its valuable minerals become a trading commodity, it could lead to even greater dependence on external players, including the U.S.
Does Ukraine currently benefit from its valuable minerals?
Before definitively labeling the proposal as selfish and highly disadvantageous, it is important to understand whether Ukrainians currently benefit from their resources or if they have prospects to develop this business in the future.
Useful minerals such as lithium, titanium, iron ore, and gas deposits are among the largest economic assets of Ukraine. However, due to the war and occupation of certain territories, access to many deposits is restricted.
- Metal and ore exports: Ukraine remains one of the main exporters of iron ore, but the war has reduced production rates and logistical capabilities.
- Energy resources: Although Ukraine has significant gas reserves, most of its deposits require substantial investments to increase extraction.
- Rare earth metals: Lithium and titanium are strategically important resources for the global economy, but their extraction currently does not generate significant income due to lack of investors and necessary infrastructure.
Alternative funding solutions for defense
To ensure defense funding without compromising on valuable minerals, Ukraine should focus on:
- Attracting direct investments into the defense industry.
- Expanding international credit programs to support the economy and defense.
- Utilizing confiscated Russian assets as a financial source for reconstruction and defense.
Conclusion: Why Ukraine should not accept such a deal
Trump’s plan may seem attractive in the short term as it promises military support. However, in the long term, it could significantly weaken Ukraine’s economic independence. Currently, the country earns revenue from raw material exports, and instead of concessions in this area, alternative defense funding options should be considered that will not undermine its future.
