To date, the EU and US approaches to striking a deal with Ukraine for access to their critical minerals have been starkly different.
The Trump administration started by trying to pressure the beleaguered state into an agreement as payback for US support in the war with Russia. It’s now stalling since a clash between presidents Donald Trump and Volodoymr Zelensky in the White House, even though Kyiv has indicated its willingness to proceed.
By contrast, the EU commissioner for industrial strategy, Stéphane Séjourné, aware of the potential risks a bilateral deal between the US and Ukraine could pose to supplies of key materials for the EU’s aerospace and defence industries, has taken a more conciliatory approach, suggesting they would never propose a deal that was not "mutually beneficial."
The EU is right to counter the bullish, resource-nationalist strategies pursued by the US and China with a more cooperative proposition that could also see each party maximize resource efficiency through circularity, secondary material markets, and industrial innovation.
The EU and Ukraine have had a Critical Raw Materials Partnership in place since 2021, but it has not been effectively operationalised, due to the invasion by Russia. A new partnership agreed in a consensual way, without arm-twisting or brinkmanship, could enhance Europe's strategic autonomy and provide the foundations for a stable and reliable long-term relationship between the nations.
Deeper integration into European industrial and supply chains would also offer Ukraine better opportunities for sustained economic growth, opening up economic opportunities beyond raw material extraction.
Unfortunately, it may be a bit late to be putting this bilateral deal on the table given the details of a US-Ukraine agreement are — according to some sources — close to being finalised.
Had Brussels acted earlier, it could have already established a stronger, mutually beneficial framework. Instead, its typically slow, reactive approach to geopolitical developments has left it in a more subordinate position.
There is a ‘third-way’: rather than competing for access to Ukraine’s minerals, the US and EU should pursue a tripartite deal. This would enhance supply chain security, accelerate investments in Ukraine, and contribute to geopolitical stability. It would enable the EU and US to pool financial and technological resources while spreading the risks of a long-term investment in a conflict-affected state.
Trump wants a deal that looks like a win for the US, but the reality is that going in with the EU would yield better results.
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 entry of Ukrainian minerals into European and US markets.
Integrating Ukraine into the EU’s energy system in 2027, would also provide a stable energy supply for any processing of raw materials.
A joint deal would mean the US wasn’t solely responsible for providing security guarantees to Kyiv, something Trump has been reluctant to commit to, but which would be a likely corollary of investment in the region. Jointly investing in accurate prospecting would reduce investment risks for all parties; and in a three-way deal the EU and US would share the burden of uncertainties and potential setbacks.
By working together, the US and the EU could increase resilience, and ensure that Ukraine’s critical raw materials contribute to a secure and diversified supply chain for both sides of the Atlantic. They are both already in the 2022 multinational Minerals Security Partnership; and companies like TechMet, which have expressed interest in Ukraine’s mineral exploration, already operate across both regions.
President Zelensky needs to get the US back on side to have a chance of defending his country against Russian aggression. But the EU is far more invested in Ukraine’s long-term economic development, with a shared vision for ‘post-war’ industrial reconstruction, long-term integration and investments.
The European Investment Bank can help mobilise investments for Ukraine’s mining sector; and Europe’s well-established industry networks, such as the European Raw Materials Alliance and the European Battery Alliance, have a key role to play in securing and developing critical raw material supply chains.
The main obstacle to a potentially fruitful three-way deal on minerals is the unpredictable and competitive approach of the Trump administration. Navigating this would require pragmatic leadership and a long-term vision on all sides. Any partnership would probably need to be presented in a way that could be labelled ‘pro-American’.
The challenges are high, and it’s hard to predict whether the Trump administration will embrace cooperation, despite the obvious long-term benefits.
However, it’s worth trying, because a three-way deal could enhance the chances of lasting peace, and enable Ukraine to benefit from its natural resources, rather than remaining a pawn in geopolitical and economic battles between great powers.
Dr Patrick Schröder is a senior research fellow at Chatham House, the London-based think-tank.
Dr Patrick Schröder is a senior research fellow at Chatham House, the London-based think-tank.