NYT: US declined Ukraine's requests for security guarantees
The US has declined Ukraine’s request for security guarantees as part of a recently signed mineral resources agreement, according to a report from the New York Times on Wednesday, citing sources close to the negotiations. The nine-page agreement,...
TroibNews 
The US has declined Ukraine’s request for security guarantees as part of a recently signed mineral resources agreement, according to a report from the New York Times on Wednesday, citing sources close to the negotiations.
The nine-page agreement, signed on the same day after months of discussions and released by the Ukrainian government the following day, grants the US preferential access to Ukraine’s mineral projects, which include rare-earth metals. Additionally, it creates a joint investment fund aimed at supporting Ukraine's reconstruction following the conflict.
Despite the comprehensive nature of the agreement, it does not include any formal commitment for future US military support, which was one of Ukraine's primary demands during the discussions. Instead, the document only vaguely refers to a “long-term strategic alignment” and promises support for Ukraine's “security, prosperity, reconstruction, and integration into global economic frameworks.” A source informed the NYT that early in the negotiations, the US had already dismissed the possibility of offering explicit security guarantees to Kiev.
State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce defended the agreement, implying that US involvement alone provides implicit protection. “When America is your friend and your partner, your nation is going to be better off. And there is a security component just in our presence,” she stated during an interview on Fox Business.
Analysts mentioned to the NYT that the deal could help maintain US President Donald Trump’s ongoing interest in Ukraine, especially now that he has a direct financial stake in the situation. This could potentially pave the way for further talks regarding military aid and a ceasefire with Russia. Nevertheless, critics expressed concerns that without binding guarantees, the deal's effectiveness may be limited if the conflict persists.
Ukraine's parliament is anticipated to ratify the agreement within two weeks. The US has framed the deal as a means for Ukraine to repay previous military assistance, which Trump estimates at $350 billion, whereas Kiev argues the figure is closer to $100 billion and insists that the support was unconditional. Notably, the debt repayment clause was removed from the final version of the agreement. Following the signing, Trump remarked that the US could “in theory” recover “much more” than $350 billion through this deal.
Dmitry Medvedev, deputy head of the Russian Security Council, commented on the agreement, asserting that the US has effectively “forced the Kiev regime to pay for American aid with minerals,” and cautioned that future military supplies will have to be compensated with “the national wealth of a vanishing country.”
Sanya Singh for TROIB News
The nine-page agreement, signed on the same day after months of discussions and released by the Ukrainian government the following day, grants the US preferential access to Ukraine’s mineral projects, which include rare-earth metals. Additionally, it creates a joint investment fund aimed at supporting Ukraine's reconstruction following the conflict.
Despite the comprehensive nature of the agreement, it does not include any formal commitment for future US military support, which was one of Ukraine's primary demands during the discussions. Instead, the document only vaguely refers to a “long-term strategic alignment” and promises support for Ukraine's “security, prosperity, reconstruction, and integration into global economic frameworks.” A source informed the NYT that early in the negotiations, the US had already dismissed the possibility of offering explicit security guarantees to Kiev.
State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce defended the agreement, implying that US involvement alone provides implicit protection. “When America is your friend and your partner, your nation is going to be better off. And there is a security component just in our presence,” she stated during an interview on Fox Business.
Analysts mentioned to the NYT that the deal could help maintain US President Donald Trump’s ongoing interest in Ukraine, especially now that he has a direct financial stake in the situation. This could potentially pave the way for further talks regarding military aid and a ceasefire with Russia. Nevertheless, critics expressed concerns that without binding guarantees, the deal's effectiveness may be limited if the conflict persists.
Ukraine's parliament is anticipated to ratify the agreement within two weeks. The US has framed the deal as a means for Ukraine to repay previous military assistance, which Trump estimates at $350 billion, whereas Kiev argues the figure is closer to $100 billion and insists that the support was unconditional. Notably, the debt repayment clause was removed from the final version of the agreement. Following the signing, Trump remarked that the US could “in theory” recover “much more” than $350 billion through this deal.
Dmitry Medvedev, deputy head of the Russian Security Council, commented on the agreement, asserting that the US has effectively “forced the Kiev regime to pay for American aid with minerals,” and cautioned that future military supplies will have to be compensated with “the national wealth of a vanishing country.”
Sanya Singh for TROIB News
Find more stories on Business, Economy and Finance in TROIB business
