‘Neither side wasted time' — Ukraine's economy minister on minerals deal negotiations with Trump’s ‘business-oriented’ administration

Ukraine's Economy Minister Yuliia Svyrydenko says her task is simple — to get the investment fund behind the closely watched minerals deal with the U.S. off the ground, and prove its detractors wrong.

"There are so many criticisms from different parties that this fund is just a piece of paper we can put on the shelves — that it won't be operational," Svyrydenko, who is also Ukraine's first deputy prime minister, tells the Kyiv Independent at Ukraine's Cabinet of Ministers on July 4, the morning after Russia's largest attack on Kyiv since the start of the full-scale invasion.

After months of fraught, drawn-out negotiations between Ukraine and U.S. President Donald Trump's administration — including the infamous Oval Office showdown — that task may seem like an easy feat. But turning the deal's vision of billions in investment into reality, in a country still fighting off Russia's now more than three-year-long invasion, is another story.

Public distrust of the agreement has lingered since it was signed in late April. And more recently, reports emerged that Trump's administration halted a shipment of military aid to Ukraine — including air defense missiles critical to protecting civilians, cities, and infrastructure — fueling doubts about whether investors will follow through amid such high risk.

But Svyrydenko remains confident that the more U.S. investment in the country, the more motivation there is for the U.S. to protect these assets. The minerals deal is just one tool at Kyiv's disposal to keep the U.S. interested in supporting Ukraine's war effort, according to Svyrydenko.

"We need to use all tools to engage with the U.S.," she says.

Whether the U.S. and the Trump administration are as invested in making the deal operational as Svyrydenko and her team are will become clear over the next year and half — the time frame the minister has given herself for getting the first three projects with the fund kicked off.

The Kyiv Independent sat down with Economy Minister Yuliia Svyrydenko and her deputies, Taras Kachka and Oleksiy Sobolev, for an in-depth discussion on the minerals deal — its origins, key details, and what lies ahead as the team prepares to deliver on an entirely new way of doing business between countries.

This interview has been edited for clarity.

The Kyiv Independent: Despite being one of the most covered topics of the last more than three years of Russia's full-scale invasion, the minerals deal still remains a bit of a mystery to the general public. How would you describe the deal in simple terms? An elevator pitch, if you will.

Yuliia Svyrydenko: First of all, you need to name it properly — everyone refers to it as the mineral deal, but it's actually an agreement on launching an investment fund based on contributions from the Ukrainian and U.S. sides. There were many myths about the fund, one being that it would repay U.S. aid from the first year of the full-scale invasion, but there is nothing about debt in the deal; it's about new investments.

Ukraine will contribute 50% of revenues from license and royalty payments from new deposits and new licenses. The U.S. side can contribute financially or through defense support. The fund will invest in projects in Ukraine related to critical minerals, oil and gas, and related infrastructure. It has to operate for 10 years before dividends are divided between both sides. For investors who obtain licenses and are looking for investment, they have to apply for the fund first and provide the terms and conditions for receiving financing. After applying, they can go to the global market. The fund will have six managers — three from each side — and is now exploring investment opportunities.

I hope that we will have the first official meeting of this fund at the end of July in Kyiv. It's extremely important for our partners, for our investors, to be in the country — to see how the country operates during wartime, to see that we're still fighting and still working. At our final meeting with (U.S. Treasury) Secretary (Scott) Bessent in Canada during the G7 meeting, we also discussed the possibility of using the fund to finance defense projects. The U.S. is considering it, but it depends on the quality of projects and if they're bankable or not.

The Kyiv Independent: So it's possible within the structure of this fund to finance defense projects?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: Yes. The structure of this fund is absolutely unique. It's also new for our bilateral relations because it's a long-term fund and (the U.S.) is looking for long-term cooperation with Ukraine. We're really proud of it. We want to keep the U.S. as a strategic partner. We understand the U.S.'s pragmatic approach — there are no security guarantees in the fund, because it's only about investment.

But we understand that if there is U.S. investment in the country, there’s more motivation for the U.S. to protect (these assets). Two days ago, our president met with U.S. companies operating in Ukraine. We discussed the need for anti-missile systems — Patriots — to protect companies and cities. We depend on the income that we generate from the private sector. This fund is also unique because it allows contributions in the form of defense support. That doesn't mean military aid would go through the fund, but it's an option.

The Kyiv Independent: Let’s talk about U.S. aid. What are your thoughts on the recent decision to temporarily halt some shipments of aid to Ukraine, especially air defense aid? Given that the Trump administration has not indicated plans for any new aid packages, and considering all the work you and your ministry have done to show that Ukraine is a reliable, long-term strategic partner, how frustrated are you by this news?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: I think, like all Ukrainians, I got this information from Politico and other media. We need to get official information first, but I really hope the U.S. will support Ukraine. We need the U.S. as a strategic partner. That’s why we believe in this fund. I think it’s one of the most effective working tracks we have with the U.S., where we can discuss our future cooperation. So let’s wait for the official statement from the U.S. side, and then we’ll reflect on it. (Editor's note: After this interview was conducted, U.S. President Donald Trump said the U.S. "might" send Patriots to Ukraine.)

My task is very simple. I want to make this fund operational because there are so many criticisms from different parties that this fund is just a piece of paper we can put on the shelves, and it won't be operational. We want to set up this fund and have this meeting (at the end of July) because we have already provided them with the list of projects.

Our idea is to start the implementation of at least three projects within the next 18 months. As I said, I do believe that (the Americans) are very pragmatic and very business-oriented. We are trying to describe ourselves as a country not looking for aid, but for investment. I think Ukraine can be a good business case.

The Kyiv Independent I’ll return to the question of the projects you want to implement, but first I’d like to go back to the beginning — the origins of this deal. Do you remember when you first heard about it, and what that initial conversation was like?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: I think it was in February. There were different people who submitted different types of documents related to this deal, but Secretary Bessent and his team were the most efficient. The negotiation involved huge teams from both sides, including professional lawyers. On the Ukrainian side, the Economy Ministry led the team, with participation from the Finance, Justice, Foreign Affairs, Energy, and Environmental Protection ministries, as the deal concerns critical raw materials. It was a very open negotiation. There’s a big difference when you hear public statements, and then move to the working track, and you understand that they are ready to listen, and they want a good deal.

The Kyiv Independent: Why do you think there's that difference in what you hear publicly and what you hear when you're communicating with them privately?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: I think at the beginning of President Trump’s term, everyone on his team wanted to bring a good deal to their president. That’s why they were competing with each other. But in the end, everybody understood that if it wasn’t a win-win for both parties, or if they kept talking about the debt, we wouldn’t get this deal. That’s why I think the team of Secretary Bessent was very constructive on the working level.

The Kyiv Independent: Let's talk about the famous Oval Office meeting. You were there, sitting next to President Zelensky, when there was this heated moment with President Trump and Vice President Vance. What was going through your mind during that moment? What were you thinking as you sat there?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: It was very emotional. But during this meeting, the president was defending not himself, but Ukraine. He was very real during this meeting, as he always is. Our whole team supported him at that moment. I was proud of my president. If he had reacted differently, it probably would have disappointed not only me but all Ukrainians. I truly believe we are still here in Kyiv and keep fighting because of him. He wakes up every day and keeps fighting and working, despite not taking even one day off.

The Kyiv Independent: Of course, you, President Zelensky, and your team left without signing a memorandum of understanding on the minerals deal. What’s interesting to know is how you got it back on track. Could you reflect on how, after that tense moment, you came back to the table and restarted talks?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: The pause of one or two weeks gave us the opportunity to work on the text of the intergovernmental agreement. I think it’s good that neither side wasted time and kept working on the agreement. We returned to Secretary Bessent and his team and said, "Let’s try to renegotiate because we are ready and have some ideas."

The Kyiv Independent: And the response was positive?

Yulii Svyrydenko: Yes, the response was positive.

The Kyiv Independent: You mentioned that you first heard of the deal around February, but wasn't some form of a deal like that presented as an option to the U.S. by the Ukrainian side earlier than that? A victory plan was presented at the end of last year, and it was mentioned as part of that plan, no?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: When we met for the first time, and we offered them this victory plan, one part of that was critical raw materials, but there were no details. The details were developed after the Oval Office meeting.

The Kyiv Independent: You said you heard about the deal in February for the first time. Weren’t you involved in the discussions and decision-making process when Ukraine was drafting the victory plan?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: Yes, I was (part of that).

The Kyiv Independent: It included a point about mineral resources. When you were doing that last year, is this (deal) what you had in mind?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: No. (Back then), there were different ideas on how it was going to be implemented. We didn't think about an investment fund, but we were also thinking about projects that we could offer to the U.S. and looking for strategic partners and anchor investors for these projects. The idea of an investment fund was offered by Secretary Bessent; it was developed during the negotiations and we now see it as an interesting tool for attracting investment.

The Kyiv Independent: What would you rename the deal if you could rename it anything?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: I don't think minerals deal is the right name because it's not about extracting critical raw materials — it's about seeking investment opportunities in Ukraine. That’s precisely why it’s an investment fund. The U.S. side also emphasizes that this is an economic recovery fund, not a minerals fund. The Americans themselves see it as broader.

The Kyiv Independent: Let’s go back to the current state of the deal. In February, things were difficult. But by late April or early May, the political agreement was signed, along with the fund agreement and other agreements. Projects are being prepared. What is happening currently, and what’s expected in the near future?

Svyrydenko: We are preparing the first meeting of the fund members to discuss the investment policy, the first contribution, and the seed money. We need to hire an investment advisor to help build the strategy. We are setting up a commission to look at critical mineral deposits, and we are currently working on a lithium deposit in Dobra — it is the first time we are considering implementing this project through a project share agreement. We also declassified the licenses and geological data to attract investment. The last reserves update was in the 1980s.

The Kyiv Independent: The first pilot project for the lithium deposit in Dobra — an American company participating is TechMet, right? What’s the timeline for that project?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: The timeline (for the deposit) is six months. Last week, we opened the contest, and next week, they should announce the terms and conditions of the Dobra deposit share product agreement — for us, it's the first time (we're doing a share product agreement for critical minerals). The winner of the product share agreement should be identified in six months' time, after which the winner can decide if they will operate (the deposits) on their own, or if they will apply to the fund to get financing, which is also optional.

If you want to extract lithium or titanium or enrich uranium, you don't have to go directly to the fund and get finance. If you have your own financing and you can implement it on your own, please.

The Kyiv Independent: And the other projects you want to get going in the first 18 months?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: We have provided and submitted different projects to our U.S. partners. One of them is a shelf and deepwater project with (state-owned oil and gas giant) Naftogaz gas exploration. We are also looking at the Kremenchuk oil refinery. It’s a strategic project and extremely important for us because the CapEx is at least $2.7 billion.

The Kyiv Independent: But Russia attacks the oil refinery constantly.

Yuliia Svyrydenko: The market for the consumption of petroleum products in Ukraine is huge, which is why we want to focus on the modernization of the refinery. We submitted this project to the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), and we are currently waiting for their feedback — it's an important project for us, and it's bankable.

The Kyiv Independent: Would there then be a conversation about air defense with the U.S. if the DFC were to move forward with this project — in order to protect it?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: There is nothing about air defense in this project, but U.S. companies that may participate in project implementation can have a strong voice and appeal to the U.S. government. If these are huge investment projects, I think it will help us have a stronger voice. We need to use all tools to engage with the U.S.

The Kyiv Independent: How effective do you think this argument could be for Trump, considering he is, after all, a businessman? The idea that American companies will be in Ukraine — how effective could that be as an argument to provide more air defense, among other things?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: I’m not sure it’s a key factor, but this administration is clearly business-oriented. It seems to me that a strong presence of American businesses in a region can increase motivation to provide air defense and military support. Of course, I’d like to believe that, as a country and strategic partner upholding democratic values and defending ourselves, we have an inherent right to receive or purchase such aid… but this business angle could serve as an additional argument.

The Kyiv Independent: During your talks with American partners, did they ask about resources in territories currently occupied by Russia? Is that part of the discussion? And if those territories are liberated, do the resources there automatically become part of this deal?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: The intergovernmental agreement states that the mineral deal covers the entire territory of Ukraine, without specifying that some areas are occupied — there were no specific questions about what is in the occupied territories, it wasn't part of our negotiations. What they did ask was what we have now — what licenses are active, which companies are involved, and what they’re looking for. We showed them a schematic map illustrating the locations of major deposits, including the occupied areas, which we highlighted, but they understood that when we talk about projects that can be implemented now, they can start in places like Kirovohrad Oblast, where there are deposits of many minerals.

The Kyiv Independent: Do you think there’s a possibility that, in the future, the U.S., regardless of having partners here, might enter into a similar agreement with Russia and gain access to our resources in the occupied territories through Russia?

Taras Kachka: That’s not possible. That would mean legally recognizing the occupied territory as Russian territory. Anything beyond that — any kind of business deal — would be impossible. It’s simply not a viable scenario. No one, not even China, recognizes these territories as ones where legitimate business activity can take place. Maybe the occupying forces will install some equipment, extract something in some rough way, and then, as happens in other cases, try to pass it off as if it were produced somewhere like Rostov (Russia). It isn’t a question about the deal; it’s a question of recognizing those territories.

The Kyiv Independent: There was a lot of news about this specific village, Shevchenko, with lithium deposits that was recently occupied. What does it mean for the deal?

Taras Kachka: Yes, there are the facts (on the ground) that we are discussing, but it does not impact the fund or our cooperation. Other materials are situated in the occupied territories, but that didn't impact the deal.

The Kyiv Independent: But does it have a PR impact? Because, of course, the news was very big, and people were framing it that way.

Taras Kachka: This is another element of a broader problem. There are fields with grain, minerals, and factories that have been destroyed. It’s the same story. While the war continues and new territories are occupied by the Russian Federation, the Ukrainian economy suffers. Ukraine as a state suffers. All our international cooperation suffers as well. That’s why the war must be stopped, the aggressor must leave our territory, and then we'll be happy to do any projects on this territory.

The Kyiv Independent: There is no head of the DFC right now, as the person who has been appointed, Benjamin Black, is still awaiting confirmation by Congress. Does the absence of a head of the DFC complicate your work?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: No, it's not a problem that there is no head right now. There's an acting head of the DFC right now, and almost every week, we have a conference call with them to discuss the current situation.

The Kyiv Independent: So, about the two other agreements that were signed after the first political agreement was signed on April 30 that have not been made public and that are not going to be. What is so sensitive about them that they can't be made public?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: The idea at the beginning was that the U.S. side wanted a commercial deal, which we said was impossible because the state is involved, so it can’t be fully commercial — that’s why it’s a mix of public and private. But the DFC insists that they are commercial deals, (so they can't be) public.

After some documents leaked, there was gossip around the committee and how in the investment committee, the U.S. had three voices and Ukraine had only two voices. But the idea is that the fund has a board and (within that board) there are four committees: prospecting, investment, audit, and administrative. Since there are different numbers of voices in these committees, and there was talk of “betrayal.” But I think the most important thing is that all decisions discussed within these committees must be approved by the board, which consists of three members on each side.

Taras Kachka: A government-to-government agreement is a public law instrument; (the one the U.S. and Ukraine signed is) open and was ratified, so there are no questions — it’s law.

For the other two remaining elements they are commercial deals, classical commercial agreements, and the establishment of a limited liability company serving as a general partner of a limited partnership between a Ukrainian entity and a U.S. entity.

We dedicate a lot of time to working with the DFC on how to treat this information. There is a lot of legal thinking within these institutions on whether it should be fully published or only briefings, excerpts, etc. That’s why I think we continue this discussion. This is what limits our ability to publish openly. But we have nothing to hide.

Yuliia Svyrydenko: It’s also important to note that the intergovernmental agreement is the main agreement, while the other two serve to deepen it.

The Kyiv Independent: Can one of the parties, either the U.S. or Ukraine, withdraw from this agreement? Is that even technically possible? How can the agreement be terminated?

Oleksii Sobolev: The agreement stays in place until both parties agree to terminate the agreement. So no one side can just exit the deal.

Yuliia Svyrydenko: And every 10 years, both parties will review the feasibility of continuing the fund’s operations.

The Kyiv Independent: What happens if in 18 months the deals haven't moved forward — what's plan B?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: To keep working with Europeans. There's a lot of interest from European countries — they're also looking (at opportunities) and trying to set up different memoranda with us. Some of them want to help us with carrying out the geological survey, which is timely and costly. Critical raw materials will remain an important topic for the U.S. and Europe for decades. But we need to keep this working track with the U.S. active on many levels.

Oleksii Sobolev: But right now we have more than weekly communications with the DFC and Secretary Bessent's people, who are pushing this forward.

The Kyiv Independent: Could road projects and road concession projects be part of this deal?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: So, actually, the interest in the governmental projects is critical raw materials, oil and gas, and related infrastructure, which likely means ports and, from our perspective, probably roads as well. We updated the PPP legislation and voted for it in the second reading a couple of weeks ago.

Oleksii Sobolev: But you need to differentiate (the different types of projects). The projects the fund could invest in are broader than those with offtake rights and investment opportunity rights. For example, critical minerals-related infrastructure projects or concessions in regions with uranium, like roads that help ship those products, will have investment opportunities. If a concession winner needs third-party financing, they should inform the fund. The fund could invest in any infrastructure, energy, or other projects.

The Kyiv Independent: There is also some confusion in the public as to whether new licenses for projects have to be presented to the fund. Is that the case?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: The fund does not participate in any tenders or auctions, nor in any privatization process. The idea is that if you want to obtain licenses, for example, for lithium extraction, you go through the ordinary tender procedure. Once you receive the license and realize you need financing for project implementation, you must provide the fund with information and the terms and conditions for attracting finance to your project.

If the fund is interested in the project or can bring in a third party to help with implementation, you cooperate with the fund and implement the project that way. But if the fund refuses your terms and conditions, you can seek financing from the global market, including IFIs or DFIs, as long as you do not offer better terms than those offered to the fund within six months. You can change the terms and conditions within those six months.

Getting a license is straightforward; if you want financing, you need to follow this process. The same applies to offtake: if you have a license and extract critical raw materials, you must first offer the offtake to the fund. If the fund refuses, you can sell on the global market at the market price.

Also, simply extending licenses does not mean license payments go to the fund, as it is a different procedure. There is a separate category for “sleeping licenses,” defined as licenses with less than 1% extraction for the past five years. If, during the five years, you have not implemented an approved program, meaning you’ve done nothing with the license, it is considered a new license.

The fund deals with income from new licenses and new production sharing agreements — 50% of the budget revenues that Ukraine receives go to the fund as the Ukrainian contribution. Based on current licenses, if the fund had been set up in 2019, the Ukrainian contribution would be Hr 3 billion — which is quite small.

Critical materials projects usually cost no less than $500 million, so we definitely need US contributions because it shows their serious intention to work with Ukraine and do business here.

We expect to receive the first seed money by the end of September. About $25 million for procedures. After that, we will see what the next contributions from both sides will be.

The Kyiv Independent: Among our Kyiv Independent audience in the West, there’s sometimes a sense that this deal is bad for Ukraine. We even received emails urging Ukraine not to sign, saying the Trump administration was trying to take advantage of Ukraine. As a Ukrainian and one of the lead negotiators, how would you respond to that?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: If it were a bad deal, I wouldn’t have signed it. The version we signed is much better than what we received during our first meeting because there is nothing about debt. Both sides will manage, co-finance, and co-own this fund. The fund will invest in Ukrainian projects on Ukrainian territory.

We have losses assessed at $500 billion by the World Bank, and in the first year of the large-scale invasion, our GDP declined by 30%; in the second year, it grew by 5%. This year, we also expect growth, but this growth has not allowed us to make a huge jump. That’s why we need tools to help attract money. Of course, we need the U.S. as our partner in this fight. All of us understand that perfectly well. So I think this is a good working track that allows us to keep negotiating with the U.S. and provide them with the most beneficial projects.

The Kyiv Independent: Are you confident that the US will remain a strategic partner to Ukraine in the next year or two years, three years during the Trump administration?

Yuliia Svyrydenko: I think that they will be our strategic partner. I truly believe this.

Author's note:

Hi there, busines editor Liliane Bivings here. Thanks for reading, I hope you enjoyed hearing directly from Ukraine's Economy Minister Yuliia Svyrydenko. Our chief editor Olga Rudenko and I sat down with her and her team last week to discuss the famed U.S.-Ukraine minerals deal to try and clear up some of the mystery that's formed around the agreement despite it being one of the most covered topics of this war. If you'd like to see more interviews like this, please consider joining our community to support independent journalism straight from Ukraine.