From: ‘kimquytu’ via PhucHungViet <PhucHungViet>
Date: Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 02:31
EXCLUSIVE
UK’s 100-year deal with Ukraine ‘under threat from Trump’
MSN, Jane Merrick Chloe Chaplain
February 27, 2025
Questions are being asked about whether a deal on minerals between Washington and Kyiv is compatible with the UK’s own agreement with Ukraine, which commits both countries to exploring opportunities for natural resources
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met in Ukraine in January 2025 (Photo by Carl Court/Getty Images)
Donald Trump’s minerals deal with Volodymyr Zelensky risks undermining the UK’s own interests in exploring opportunities for Ukraine’s natural resources, the government has been warned.
In January, Sir Keir Starmer and President Zelensky signed a 100-year partnership for closer cooperation between their two countries on everything from defence and security to culture and sport.
That agreement included a clause on minerals, which proposed a joint working group to maximise the “benefits from Ukraine’s natural resources” as well as support the development of a Ukrainian “critical minerals strategy”.
But the US-Ukraine deal, which is expected to be approved when Zelensky visits Washington on Friday, is understood to give the US wide-ranging access to that country’s mineral riches in exchange for investment and rebuilding infrastructure after the war – fuelling fears that British interests could be squeezed out.
Pressure on governments to meet their net zero commitments, as well as increasing global insecurity, has led to a global scramble for natural resources used in both the green transition – such as batteries for EVs and solar panels – and the defence sector.
It is thought that Ukraine has around 5 per cent of the world’s critical raw materials, including graphite, titanium, lithium, beryllium, uranium, copper, lead, zinc, silver, nickel and cobalt, as well as rare earths used in wind turbines, weapons and electronics.
The possible clash of interests between the UK and US emerged as Trump hosted Starmer at the White House for crucial talks over Ukraine, trade and global security.
The Kyiv government has said half of the revenues from future state-owned natural resources projects will be funnelled into a joint reconstruction investment fund between the US and Ukraine.
When asked by The i Paper what impact the Trump-Zelensky deal would have on the UK’s own agreement on Ukraine’s minerals, the Foreign Office declined to say, stating that it wanted to support measures to bring the war to an end.
But it has emerged that Foreign Secretary David Lammy spoke to Zelensky about minerals in talks in Kyiv last week – a sign that Starmer’s government is still keen to get access to Ukraine’s riches.
Labour MP Stella Creasy said: “Given the importance of our 100-year partnership with Ukraine to the security of our continent and the explicit commitment it contains to a critical minerals strategy, the Government must be clear whether our existing deal has been undermined by what is being agreed with America and how we will ensure these vital resources are not siphoned away at a cost to our national security.”
The 100-year partnership between London and Kyiv features nine pillars where both countries have agreed to closer cooperation: defence; security; maritime; economy and trade; energy and climate; justice; hostile state interference; science and tech; and culture and sport.
Under energy and climate, the UK and Ukraine agreed to support the “development of a Ukrainian critical minerals strategy and necessary regulatory structures required to support the maximisation of benefits from Ukraine’s natural resources, through the possible establishment of a Joint Working Group”.
The legally binding document is in effect for 100 years, but its provisions may be amended at any time if both sides agree, while any dispute on the interpretation of the agreement will be settled in consultation between both governments.
Either side can terminate the agreement with a written notice of six months.
In the House of Commons earlier this week, Lammy described the 100-year partnership as a “unique document, not only in our history and Ukraine’s history, but in the history of the world, and I believe it sets a pretty good guide for how to strike a relationship across many fronts”.
He said the relationship “will bring big wins for British businesses over the years ahead, but it will also bring big wins for Ukrainian businesses – we will learn from their innovation”.
The Foreign Office declined to comment on whether the US minerals deal would impact the UK’s prospects under the 100-year partnership.
They pointed out that Defence Secretary John Healey had welcomed the US minerals deal by saying that “anything that binds the US more closely into the future of Ukraine, that reinforces the President’s commitment to deliver a durable peace in which Russia can be deterred for the long term is a good step”.
The Foreign Office said discussions between the US and Ukraine were a matter for those governments and that all three countries wanted to see a “durable peace” and that the UK is supportive of “any development that helps deliver a secure, prosperous and stable future for Ukraine”.
Following reports that France is seeking a deal with Ukraine, Downing Street was asked whether the UK wanted to secure a similar agreement.
A spokesperson said: “In terms of the minerals, that’s obviously a matter for the US and Ukraine.”
The spokesperson said the 100-year partnership was “a unique document based on British business, British industry, defence capability, drone capability, people to people links over the course of the next century”.
“In the end, if US interests are on the ground in Ukraine then that is the best security guarantee that the Ukrainians can have,” they added.
Rubio points finger at Zelensky for breakdown of Trump meeting – YouTube
UK-France tensions over plan to seize $350bn Russia assets for US arms
Macron fears approach would breach principle of immunity of sovereign assets and undermine efforts to strengthen European defence
The Guardian, Monday March 3 2025
Tensions have surfaced between France and the UK over whether $350bn of frozen Russian assets can be seized and then offered to the US to buy defence equipment, binding America closer to the defence of Europe.
The UK’s willingness to seize the assets is longstanding, but its position has become more pronounced in recent weeks, with a high-level endorsement by the UK foreign secretary, David Lammy. The proposal has also had the support of the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
However, in common with the European Central Bank and Germany, Emmanuel Macron opposes the move over fears that it would breach the principle of the immunity of sovereign assets and thereby have a deterrent effect on investment in the eurozone area by countries like Saudi Arabia and China.
Speaking alongside Trump last week, the French president said: “We have $250bn frozen Russian assets in Europe, but this does not belong to us so they are frozen. If at the end of the day in the negotiation we would have with Russia, they are ready to give it to us, super.” Macron has also long argued that Europe must end its reliance on US weapons for its defence, and feels vindicated by Donald Trump’s treatment of Ukraine. He would also be reluctant to see frozen Russian assets being used to boost the US defence industry, as opposed to strengthening the ability of Europe to protect Ukraine.
When he was UK foreign secretary, David Cameron repeatedly said he instinctively favoured seizing the assets, arguing there was little practical difference since the UK was already committed to not returning the frozen assets to Russia until Russia had paid war reparations to Ukraine.
The Guardian understands there is some tension over the assets question between the UK and France, which have committed to leading a “coalition of the willing” to help end the fighting in Ukraine.
Inside the EU the Czech Republic, Estonia and Poland have been the strongest supporters of seizing the assets and not just using the interest to secure loans for Ukraine.
The assets question has become more urgent as Europe casts around for a means of keeping Trump from entirely withdrawing US support for Ukraine. The UK and France have both said some sort of US security guarantee is required for them to send peacekeeping forces into Ukraine.
The European Union is to discuss relaxing rules on defence spending at a summit this week.
A proposal for a large part of the Russian assets to be spent on the US defence industry is seen as the kind of offer that might make Trump change course.
Disagreements over the feasibility of the proposal stem from differing opinions over whether Trump would take up the offer, and whether it would undermine the need to build a European defence industry independent of the US. France has been frustrated since the war began that EU countries have only ordered 22% of their military equipment from Europe, with the majority coming from the US.
Macron has focused on raising defence spending inside Nato to 3.5% of GDP, with the funding coming from a variety of sources including unused EU cohesion funds, a joint defence bond or increases in national defence spending. In a weekend interview with Le Figaro he admitted it might take a decade for Europe to become fully self-reliant as a defence force.
The UK’s commitment to maintaining the transatlantic alliance has been underlined by it arguing that the stalled raw minerals agreement between Ukraine and the US will have to be revived, and probably on terms that make it appear more favourable to the US. The aim would be to let Trump feel vindication for his showdown with Zelenskyy in the White House on Friday.
The near two-year debate in the UK and across Europe about the legality and wisdom of seizing Russian state assets was given a boost last week when the former Conservative prime minister Rishi Sunak argued the legal challenges to seizure can be overcome.
Writing in the Economist, he argued: “Russia’s brutal assault on Ukraine has so violated the principle of ‘sovereign equality’- that all states have a duty to respect the territorial integrity and political independence of other states – that it is hard to see how this concept can be invoked to stop these assets from being seized.”
It is estimated about $240bn of the Russian frozen assets are in the EU, up to $28bn to $30bn in the UK and the rest elsewhere.
The UK former national security adviser Lord Ricketts has argued France and the UK can avoid tensions by handing the assets to Ukraine. He said if the UK and EU agreed to raise a large fund of up to €100bn using frozen Russian assets it would be possible for Ukraine to buy arms from both European suppliers, but also large quantities from the US, creating a double win.