As Washington pushes for a ceasefire in Ukraine, Kyiv is also under pressure to sign a minerals deal that would grant the US access to its valuable raw materials.
The European Commission, in fear of losing out in the race to secure Ukraine’s rare earths, has made Kyiv a rival offer: a ‘win-win partnership’ to develop its minerals, building on existing cooperation and positioned as ‘mutually beneficial’ in contrast to Washington’s focus on extracting wealth as payment for its war support.
But rather than competing for access to Ukraine’s minerals, the US and the EU should pursue a joint US-EU-Ukraine minerals partnership. A transatlantic approach would enhance supply chain security, accelerate investments and help provide geopolitical stability, ultimately leading to better outcomes for Ukraine.
It would also benefit both the US and the EU, who could pool financial and technological resources while spreading the risks of a long-term investment that requires operating in dangerous circumstances.
Why the US should cooperate with the EU
The Trump administration is keen to sign a deal that it can present as a political victory, securing what it sees as its deserved repayment for supporting Ukraine. Minerals are essential for safeguarding both national and economic security – a stated priority for the Trump administration – especially in the context of geostrategic competition with China. But in the long term, it would stand to gain more through a partnership with the EU.
Without European cooperation, the US faces logistical challenges in extracting and transporting minerals from Ukraine, as well as regulatory misalignment.
The EU holds key advantages, such as geographic proximity, established trade and logistic networks and regulatory frameworks that can facilitate the integration of Ukrainian mineral value chains into both European and US markets.
A joint deal would also share the potential risks. American political commentators have warned that Trump’s proposed deal has inherent strategic risks to US interests. By investing in Ukraine’s minerals, the US could find itself embroiled in providing Kyiv with security guarantees that the Trump administration has so far been keen to avoid.
Aside from the security implications, extracting Ukraine’s minerals has its own investment risks. Developing Ukraine’s mining sector is a long-term project, with uncertainties and potential setbacks over the next decade before any significant commercial output is realized.
Some have also questioned whether Ukraine’s minerals are as valuable as Kyiv claims. Jointly investing in accurate prospecting reduces risks for all parties by ensuring informed decision-making, optimizing resource allocation and attracting investments.
By working together, the US and the EU can share these risks, increase resilience, and ensure that Ukraine’s critical raw materials contribute to a secure and diversified supply chain for both sides of the Atlantic.
Cooperation on minerals already exists. The US and EU are partners in the 2022 multinational Minerals Security Partnership, which provides a platform for strategic coordination on minerals and fosters joint planning and investment strategies.
Companies like TechMet, which have expressed interest in Ukraine’s mineral exploration, already operate across both Europe and the US, demonstrating that transatlantic collaboration in critical minerals is both feasible and beneficial.
Trump may be unlikely to embrace a shared approach in his pursuit of an ‘America first’ headline achievement. But in terms of actual long-term policy, the minerals deal will be a more concrete achievement if Washington works with, rather than against, its European allies.
Europe and Ukraine benefit from long-term strategy
For the EU, a joint deal would secure access to Ukraine’s mineral resources, including critical materials such as lithium and rare earth elements that the EU needs for its energy transition plans as well as its aerospace and defence industries.
The EU and Ukraine have had the Ukraine-EU Strategic Partnership on Raw Materials in place since 2021, but it has not been fully implemented. While the partnership identifies key areas for cooperation, including sustainable mineral exploration, joint research and development under Horizon Europe programmes, and Ukraine’s integration into critical mineral value chains, concrete action has been limited in part due to the war.
The EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act and its new Clean Industrial Deal also already include strong provisions for a smarter and forward-thinking minerals strategy aligned with the circular economy from which both the EU and Ukraine can benefit.
In the short-term, President Zelenskyy has been keen to win the US back on side after his catastrophic meeting in Washington last month. To that end, he appears ready to sign the minerals deal and present Trump with a victory in return for Washington’s support.
But the EU is far more invested in Ukraine’s long-term economic development than the US. By including the EU in a minerals deal, Ukraine will also benefit from enhanced cooperation and long-term investment.
The EU is not just a key partner for Ukrainian defence but already has a shared vision for Ukraine’s ‘post-war’ industrial reconstruction, with deepening economic ties and plans for long-term integration and investments. It has offered a new support package to secure Ukraine’s energy system, which remains under attack by Russia, and integrate it within the EU’s energy market by early 2027.
The EU’s well-established industry networks, such as the European Raw Materials Alliance (ERMA) and the European Battery Alliance (EBA), already play an important role in developing raw material supply chains and building value chains for high-end products such as batteries. Ukraine joined ERMA in 2021, but there is still more work to be done to integrate its resources into European technology value chains.
More European investment in Ukraine’s mining sector is also needed, building on initiatives such as the €7 million EU grant awarded in 2024 to Velta, a Ukrainian titanium mining company, to strengthen European supply chains.
Mutually beneficial minerals diplomacy
The case for US-EU cooperation with Ukraine on critical minerals is clear – economically, it would strengthen supply chains and attract investment, while strategically, it reduces risks and enhances stability.
The main obstacle to this fruitful cooperation is the atmosphere of competition and distrust fostered by the Trump administration.
Navigating this difficult context requires pragmatic leadership and a long-term vision from negotiators on all sides to ensure that Ukraine benefits from resource development rather than becoming an economic battleground between the US and the EU.
Any potential partnership will likely still need to be presented in a way in which Trump can claim as a pro-American deal. While the Trump administration may be unlikely to embrace cooperation, despite the obvious long-term benefits, the EU and Ukraine should still try to secure a mutually beneficial outcome for all.
Dr Patrick Schröder, Senior Research Fellow, Environment and Society Centre and Armida van Rij, Senior Research Fellow, Europe Programme.