Lawmakers from both parties have expressed skepticism about President Trump's expected deal to share Ukraine's mineral wealth, warning that strong buy-in from Ukrainian President Voldymir Zelensky and robust security guarantees from the United States will be required.
The GOP Senator is split into new deals, with some calling it a big potential victory, while other Republicans are seeking stronger assurances of Ukraine's sovereignty.
However, some conservatives have warnings about US security guarantees. They fear it risks it involves the country in future wars.
The draft potential deal that splits controls of Ukraine's rare earth minerals, oil and natural gas reserves that were distributed on Thursday did not include Ukraine's solid security guarantees.
Sen. Tom Tillis (RN.C.), a leading advocate for US support in the Ukrainian war effort, said the strong security assurance in the US is “critical” to seduce US private investment in mineral and fossil fuel extraction within Ukrainian boundaries.
He said, “If security guarantees, “Why would they go there as long as the private sector plays a role?”
“This will be important to our reliability as to being a US or European company or a company that is permitted to participate. They must have those security assurances,” he said.
Tillis warned that the “complex factors” were that “the majority of the minerals we are talking about are under the ground where Russian soldiers stand in the area currently occupied.”
Sen. Todd Young (R-ind.), a prominent voice on national security issues, said he is waiting to see if Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials will accept the deal.
“We look forward to reviewing the final terms of the transaction,” he said. “I'd like to hear from the Ukrainians.
“My feeling is that this was a mutually beneficial economic situation. It doesn't fully answer the Ukrainians' security concerns. I hope that through diplomacy, the regime is persuading Europeans to assume that the existence and role of security there is very high,” he said.
Zelensky is scheduled to visit the White House on Friday to sign the contract. Trump praises it as a “very big deal.”
A bipartisan group of senators will also meet with Zelensky.
Young said the US should provide support to European allies in the near-midterm to “stoop further Russian invasions.”
He argued that “it's very important for us to provide effective deterrent,” and that past administrations have failed to send a clear message of deterrence to Russia and other enemies.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) called the mineral agreement a “good step,” but warned that the stronger security guarantees the US offers “should exist.”
“It would be a solid financial arrangement for the Ukrainians and American taxpayers,” he said.
othersRepublicans are pushing back the Defense Hawks within their meetings by warning that the US should not make security commitments in Ukraine that can draw people into direct armed conflict with Russia.
“I'm not for security transactions with Ukraine, I'm for ending the war,” said Sen. Rand Paul (r-ky.) “I think the president is doing a good job pushing towards the end of the war. The sooner the faster the better. The sooner the massacre can be stopped, the better.
“We have not promised to protect the world or protect Ukraine,” he said.
Trump explicitly halted his commitment to assure Ukraine's sovereignty at the start of the Cabinet meeting on Wednesday.
Mineral trade covers future licensing and infrastructure projects and has not already enabled existing facilities, licenses, and royals.
The president said he “will not give security guarantees.” [for Ukraine] Over so much, we are trying to get Europe to do it. ”
The terms of the draft contract reflect a more generous offer to Ukraine, giving the US a $500 billion share of rare earth minerals over Trump's initial demand, paying the US support already offered.
Zelensky rejected the first offer criticised by NATO allies, such as German Prime Minister Olaf Scholz, who described Trump's gambit as “very selfish” and “very selfish.”
Sen. Chris Koons (d-del.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the latest proposal to share Ukraine's mineral wealth appears to have been improved from a proposal that came to light earlier this month.
“It seems like it's been improved since it was explained to me at a security conference in Munich and at a few different conferences,” he said.
“It sounded like the first one presented [to Ukraine] It is an extractive and crafted agreement, and the amendments made will move far more towards co-investment in access to critical minerals and funding Ukraine's defense and reconstruction,” he said. “It seems much more acceptable and sustainable to me.”
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), another member of the Diplomatic Relations Panel, argued that the new deal was largely meaningless and that there was no real obligation from either the US or Ukraine.
“Have you seen that details? It looks like a letter to each other. It's not real, it's a few words on paper,” he said.
“When you talk about mineral trade, it sounds like something with actual obligations from one party to the other. It doesn't look like what this is. It looks like vomiting on a paper that means nothing,” he said.
