Should Ukraine have signed the rare earths agreement?
The US mineral agreement went through several revisions. Notably, because the White House initially made an unacceptable offer to Ukraine.
Senior Economist at the Centre for Economic Strategy Volodymyr Landa noted that Ukraine needed a rare earth minerals agreement earlier for several reasons. The first is that it could probably have deterred Russian aggression.
“If we had more partners at that time, if international companies were developing mineral deposits in eastern Ukraine, perhaps Russia would have been more thoughtful before committing an act of aggression,” said Volodymyr Landa.
He stated that foreign nations prioritize the protection of states that provide them with economic advantages.
What is in it for Ukraine?
The second reason is that such an agreement provides the opportunity for new businesses to emerge. Even if the agreement stipulates a 50/50 ownership split, or even 100% in favor of foreign companies, these companies will pay rent and create jobs in Ukraine.
This includes not only mines, but also enrichment plants and processing factories. When it comes to titanium or lithium, it could also involve plants for the production of rechargeable batteries, aerospace products, and so on.
“The necessity of the agreement is obvious. Was it worth signing the agreement we had? The agreement that Scott Bessent first brought to Ukraine was absolutely unacceptable; it resembled something between looting, reparations, and the initial offer at an eastern bazaar, when both sides know that the offer is far from reality,” said Volodymyr Landa.
He explained that the first version of the agreement was a proposal in the style of Trump’s book ‘The Art of the Deal’, namely, stunning with the initial offer. Despite changing negotiating teams, the second and third agreements remained similarly unfavorable, and the Ukrainian side was unclear about which version to address.
Did the US compromise?
Landa noted that the most recent iteration of the agreement, publicly available, constituted a compromise whereby Ukraine preserved its national interests while consenting to cooperation.
“On the other hand, US President Donald Trump, who had promised to achieve an agreement, could fulfill that promise. Obviously, a political agreement was reached regarding a sufficiently neutral text. It was a framework agreement, not a colonial one like the previous versions, and it provided a wide field for further cooperation,” said Volodymyr Landa.
He explained that Trump promised to achieve an agreement, and he did. He knew the agreement was inevitable by the time the White House meeting started. Landa stated that analysts approved of the President’s of Ukraine handling of the meeting with Trump, while the United States is losing its position and giving other players a chance to enter the arena.
Democracy Index in the world
He added that there is a democracy index in the world. For most of human history until the year 2000, there were fewer democracies than non-democracies. It was only in 2000 that the number of democracies exceeded the number of autocratic regimes.
“At that time, it seemed like an irreversible process. It soon became apparent that there was also a reverse current. Now we see a situation in which the number of democracies and autocracies is roughly equal – 90 to 90 among independent countries. America is actually ready to give up the flag of the leader of the democratic world,” said Volodymyr Landa.
He added that it’s not so much America, but rather the current White House.
Source: 24 Kanal.
Other news from CES experts via the link.