Not 50%, but 100% of minerals go to the Americans. Details of the new U.S. deal proposals with Ukraine – The New York Times

The second edition of the draft agreement on transferring the rights to Ukrainian mineral resources to the United States is significantly worse for Kyiv than the initial version.

This was reported by The New York Times.

The new U.S. proposal is no better than the original one, and “some conditions seem even harsher than in the previous draft of the document.” Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump’s team is “aggressively pushing through the new agreement.”

The revised version of the agreement was received by Bankova (the Ukrainian presidential office) from the White House on Friday, February 21. The new agreement now covers not only mineral extraction but also oil and gas development, as well as their subsequent sale. Additionally, Ukraine will be required to give up half of its revenues from port operations and other infrastructure. Similar conditions were included in the initial draft dated February 14. The funds will be deposited into a special fund.

The document stipulates that the United States will have full ownership of this fund, with contributions allocated at a ratio of two to one—where Ukraine provides two-thirds of the revenue from resource extraction, while Washington contributes one-third.

However, in reality, the U.S. will not provide actual financial contributions but will simply count its share against the total amount for which American weapons were supplied to Kyiv to counter the Russian invasion.

Ukraine, on the other hand, will be required to continue making payments into the fund until its volume reaches $500 billion—the amount Trump demanded in exchange for the U.S. assistance already provided. This sum was not mentioned in the first edition of the agreement.

The agreement does not include any security guarantees for Kyiv. Furthermore, Washington does not assume any obligations for financial support, although the revised draft states that the U.S. could reinvest part of the fund’s revenue into Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction, including resource development and infrastructure construction.

Bankova has proposed revising the fund’s size and ensuring that its funds are used exclusively for Ukraine’s reconstruction.

Interestingly, the new draft agreement includes provisions for collecting revenues from territories currently occupied by Russia—accounting for 66% of the expected total funds.

The jurisdiction for resolving potential disputes has been assigned to a New York court, which “has raised concerns among the Ukrainian side, as this could weaken Ukraine’s legal position in case of a dispute.”

It should be noted that Bankova had previously put forward counter-demands for increased military support and post-war security guarantees. However, The New York Times writes that “the new document provides neither.”

As of midday today, Ukraine has not yet approved the deal, the publication adds.

Nevertheless, NYT sources believe that Kyiv will be forced to sign this agreement soon to unblock cooperation with the U.S. in resolving the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.

These conditions have not been officially confirmed. At the same time, the American publication Axios recently reported that the resource agreement would be disadvantageous for Ukraine, describing it as a “shit sandwich.”

It is worth noting that before the public conflict between Volodymyr Zelensky and Trump’s team, the Americans had proposed an equal revenue split. However, after Kyiv refused to sign the first version of the agreement, the conditions, as we can see, have become more stringent.