AS the Ukraine-Russia war nears a potential conclusion, the contentious US-Ukraine minerals deal has sparked international scrutiny. At the heart of the issue lies Ukraine’s vast reserves of rare earth elements and other critical minerals, which are increasingly entwined with US financial, economic and strategic security interests. This deal has raised questions about geopolitical leverage, resource control and its broader implications for a post-war Ukraine.
The minerals agreement represents a strategic shift in Washington’s approach to Kyiv, linking economic interest with military aid and post-war reconstruction. Under the preliminary agreement, Ukraine would grant the US access to its vast rare earth mineral deposits, a move framed as a way for American taxpayers to “get their money back” for the billions in aid provided during the war. The deal also establishes an investment fund, jointly managed by Washington and Kyiv, where Ukraine would allocate 50 percent of future revenues from its state-owned mineral, oil and gas resources. This is an improvement from initial US demands, which reportedly sought up to $500 billion in mineral wealth.
However, a key sticking point remains — security guarantees. Ukrainians emphasized that without firm US commitments to Ukraine’s security, a lasting peace or ceasefire is unattainable. Trump, however, has resisted offering such guarantees, instead urging Europe to shoulder the responsibility for Kyiv’s long-term security. This dynamic underscores the tension between Trump’s transactional approach and Ukraine’s pressing need for strategic assurances and security guarantees.
Transactional approach over strategic commitment
No doubt, this deal has far-reaching implications for how Ukraine and indeed other countries view the reliability and long-term commitment of the United States with its supposed allies and strategic partners.
In terms of political and strategic implications, the deal is indeed highly contentious. Critics, including elements within Ukraine, argue that ceding half of the nation’s future resource revenues, especially on terms seen as overwhelmingly favoring US interests, is tantamount to selling Ukraine national sovereignty and signing away a large portion of Ukraine’s wealth without genuine, binding security guarantees. Indeed, such a deal sets a dangerous and troubling precedent, where defense/military aid is not a reflection of strategic solidarity and is effectively “bought” via future resource revenues akin to purely financial transactions benefiting US interests rather than being part of a mutual security arrangement.
This dynamic does not only erode trust in the US as a security partner but also reinforces the perception that US commitments/support have always been contingent on what it can extract and gain economically and financially rather than being rooted in strategic, steadfast, values-based alliance, and reliable and enduring partnership. Framing support as an investment requiring repayment undermines the reliability of the US as a partner/ally, especially in times of crisis.
Ultimately, this approach undermines the credibility of the US, suggesting that American foreign policy has always been dictated by its immediate economic advantages/benefits rather than by enduring partnerships. In practical terms, it signals to Ukraine and other allies that US support may not be a reliable foundation, most especially in times of existential crisis, and the US is not a reliable partner. For Ukraine, a country fighting for its survival, the absence of solid security guarantees is deeply problematic and further weakens its strategic position, making it vulnerable to future security threats.
Insights, takeaways for PH
While Ukraine and the Philippines are very different cases, there are instructive parallels and cautionary lessons, especially when a country’s national long-term security, national interest and sovereignty are at stake in its external partnerships with the US.
Under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the Philippines’ heavy reliance on US backing for political survival, as well as on American defense and military aid, has resulted in the South China Sea dispute with China. However, this mounting dependence significantly shaped its confrontational/belligerent stance necessitates caution. The Philippines must critically assess and, where necessary, disengage from agreements that erode control over its strategic resources and policy decisions. Further entrenching a foreign policy framework that is dictated by US strategic interests, particularly under the previous Biden administration, risks deepening the erosion of the country’s strategic autonomy, independence and sovereignty.
Rather than allowing its geopolitical position to be dictated by external power and influences, the Philippines must pursue a more balanced/neutral approach, one that leverages external partnerships for national security without compromising its long-term sovereignty, autonomy and independent decision-making. Striking this balance is not only prudent but essential for ensuring that foreign engagements serve Philippine national interests rather than the strategic priorities of an external power.
Likewise, the Philippines should take heed of the experience of Ukraine that relying on external military/defense/security aid without clear, binding commitments can leave a nation vulnerable to shifts in the geopolitical landscape. Hence, the Philippines must be cautious of overdependence on any single external power. Instead of entering into deals that prioritize short-term gains over long-term national interest, the Philippines should aim to diversify its alliances and build resilient, multidimensional relationships that respect its autonomy, independence and sovereignty.
Also, the Philippines should prioritize strengthening regional partnerships to mitigate overreliance on US security structures and support. In the evolving Indo-Pacific geopolitical landscape, the country can draw critical lessons from the value of regional cooperation, particularly in maintaining strategic flexibility and autonomy. Deepening engagement with Asean neighbors and other regional stakeholders can foster a more balanced and resilient security framework, reducing the risk of entanglement in the great-power competition and rivalry between the US and China. By pursuing a diversified security strategy, the Philippines can better safeguard its national interest and avoid the destabilizing consequences of excessive dependence on a single external power, preventing a scenario akin to Ukraine’s current precarious geopolitical predicament.
Furthermore, the Philippines should prioritize long-term strategic vision against short-term gains. It must similarly balance the allure of short-term external support with the imperative of maintaining a clear, independent strategic vision and logic, ensuring that any external engagement aligns with the country’s sovereignty and long-term economic and security interests crucial for its security, peace, long-term survival and sustainable development.
Conclusion
Henry Kissinger’s famous remark, “To be an enemy of the US is dangerous but to be its friend is fatal,” speaks to the peril of overreliance on the US. While the power of the US is undeniable, the cost of being its “friend” may be a strategic vulnerability that leaves partners exposed to unilateral, self-interested terms. Being too dependent on the US might lead to a situation where partners are forced into unequal bargains. Becoming entangled in a relationship where the US sets the terms can have fatal consequences, squeezing partners into arrangements that may not serve their national interest over time.
Undoubtedly, the Ukrainian experience when it comes to its dealings with the US underscores the risks of a highly transactional foreign policy, where short-term aid comes at the potential cost of its sovereignty and long-term autonomy. For the Philippines, the lesson is to craft foreign policy and relations that secure necessary support from reliable external partners without compromising national sovereignty. This means diversifying alliances and ensuring that any external support is fully aligned with the country’s long-term strategic interests and sovereignty.
Source: The Manila Times
https://www.manilatimes.net/2025/03/01/opinion/columns/us-ukraine-minerals-deal-a-cautionary-tale/2064777
