In a (not-so-surprising) political shift, the United States has adopted a pragmatic approach toward its support for Ukraine, connecting economic interests with political support and military aid.
President Donald Trump announced that the United States and Ukraine are on the verge of finalizing a significant mineral rights deal.
This agreement would grant the U.S. preferential access to Ukraine’s abundant reserves of critical minerals, such as titanium and lithium, in exchange for a complex political-economical support provided during the reconstruction of Ukraine and to show Russia the strong US interest and engagement next Ukraine.
After the first angry refusals, recent statements prove that Ukraine is ready for the deal and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is expected to visit Washington soon to formalize this arrangement. The deal is poised to play a pivotal role in Ukraine’s post-war economic recovery and at the same time, ensure that Ukraine pays for the continued American aid.
Though shocking at first, this strategy could actually be beneficial for both parties, as it not only ensures a return on American investments but also fosters a sustainable partnership and a real long term U.S. engagement.
It is also something that experts of geopolitics have been saying for a while: an approach based on realpolitik might be a more effective crisis management tool than ideology and makes it easier to take realistic assessments and decisive actions in complex situations.
In this case, by securing access to essential resources, the U.S. not only aids Ukraine but also addresses its own strategic needs, creating a symbiotic relationship that benefits both nations.
The European Union is, in contrast, still primarily focusing on political integration and wants to offer security assurances without requesting real economic compensation for the earlier or further financial losses or without real Ukrainian guarantees.
In a moment when Washington has explicitly excluded security integration (NATO membership for Ukraine), not wanting to change the level of confrontation with Russia. And, even more importantly, finally saying it out loud that without Kyiv providing security, democratic and market guarantees, NATO membership is unimaginable.
Then came European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
During a recent visit to Kyiv, she suggested that Ukraine’s EU membership could be attainable before 2030, contingent upon continued reforms.
Though this promise serves as an incentive for Ukraine to align with European standards and values (a process that even before the war was slow and rather unsuccessful), offering long-term security and political stability, but all costs would be paid by European taxpayers.
The end of this can come in two ways.
Case A, Europe will not offer enough security guarantees for Ukraine, because it can’t anger its voters more.
Case B) it does, then in the case of a future Russian – Ukrainian conflict the EU could easily find itself in a much more difficult situation. To avoid this, the EU will have to maintain a strong military presence in Ukraine (with that ending up back on Square One, angering Moscow with foreign boots in its ‘security zone’) and/or with an enormous military spending to enable complete deterrence.
Either way, the EU’s current strategy primarily focuses on political alignment and does not directly address immediate economic returns or resource security for the EU. More significantly, the lack of concrete guarantees from Ukraine regarding future cooperation leaves European taxpayers and political leaders without assurances of reciprocal commitment.
To enhance the efficacy of its support and ensure mutual benefits, the European Union could consider adopting elements of the U.S. approach by integrating economic collaboration into its aid framework. This could involve negotiating agreements that grant the EU access to Ukraine’s critical raw materials, thereby securing essential resources for European industries while providing Ukraine with immediate economic support.
Such a strategy would not only offer a return on investment for EU member states but also strengthen Ukraine’s economy, making it more resilient and better prepared for eventual integration into the European Union. By aligning economic interests with political support, the EU could foster a more robust and mutually beneficial partnership with Ukraine.
The United States’ model of combining military aid with economic agreements offers a pragmatic blueprint for international support.
By ensuring that assistance is coupled with tangible economic benefits, both donor and recipient nations can achieve a balanced and sustainable partnership.
For the European Union, incorporating economic incentives into its support for Ukraine could enhance the effectiveness of its aid, secure essential resources for its industries, and provide Ukraine with the economic foundation necessary for successful integration. Embracing a strategy that intertwines political support with economic collaboration may pave the way for a more resilient and prosperous alliance between the EU and Ukraine.
To understand the meaning of this new strategy the European leaders should wake up and go back to ‘leadership school’ not just follow the old politics.
Maybe they could follow the lead of President Zelensky in embracing the new reality.
They like to leave the leadership to him, anyways, having allowed him to dictate the terms of the bilateral relations.
