Has the time come for the European Union to place its bets on critical raw materials?
The failed deal during the meeting between the American and Ukrainian presidents on February 28, and the rising tensions, are setting the stage for a potential explosion of the geopolitical bubble.
What strategy can Europe pursue now?
The lack of agreement between the United States and Ukraine presents Europe with a serious challenge, but it also opens up new opportunities. If the US gradually withdraws its support for Ukraine, the EU will have to decide what role it wants to play in the conflict. On one hand, it could strengthen its own defense capabilities, possibly establishing an independent European defense alliance. On the other hand, if the Americans step back from exploiting Ukrainian mineral resources, the EU could make a more attractive offer to Kyiv and build a strategic partnership with it. Thirdly, Europe could act as a mediator in resolving the conflict, but this would require a unified and determined foreign policy, which the divisive Paris meeting organized by Macron has not yet demonstrated.
One thing is certain: if Europe does not act quickly and decisively in the tripolar world order dominated by the USA, Russia, and China, it could easily become a passive observer of events, losing the chance to assert its own interests in this emerging geopolitical arena.
One example of the strategic directions facing Europe is the meeting held in London on March 2, 2025, where European leaders sought to show that they are not merely spectators in ending the conflict. The conference, which brought together several European leaders, aimed to take control of the negotiations over the Russia-Ukraine war from the United States and to form a unified European response. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron outlined a one-month ceasefire proposal as an “alternative peace process,” which would initially include halting airstrikes, naval operations, and attacks on energy infrastructure, followed by a second phase involving ground troops. Should peace be achieved, a “coalition of the willing” would be established to enter Ukraine. The British and French leaders believe it will be their task to persuade Trump to support the European proposal.
The London summit is linked to the strategic path of strengthening Europe’s mediating role and independent defense capabilities, where Europe can both act as a mediator in the peace process and strengthen its own defense abilities and ties with Ukraine. The London summit can be seen as a step toward these goals, with its main precedent being the US–Ukrainian meeting.
On February 28, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and US President Donald Trump met in Washington to finalize an agreement on mineral extraction. The essence of the agreement would have been for Ukraine to provide the United States with critical raw materials worth $100 billion in exchange for Western support. According to the draft agreement on minerals, the United States and Ukraine would have established a Reconstruction Investment Fund, into which a portion of Ukraine’s revenues—including those from minerals, hydrocarbons, and other extractable materials—would be collected and reinvested. Ukraine would contribute 50 percent of its revenues (after deducting operating costs) to the fund until contributions reached $500 billion. In return, the United States would have committed to long-term financial support for the development of a stable and economically prosperous Ukraine. In exchange, the Ukrainian side aimed to obtain security guarantees equivalent to NATO membership, but this was not included in the deal, even though the US side had reduced the scale of the previous $500 billion proposal.
However, the negotiations reached an unexpected result—or rather, a lack of result—though this is a matter of perspective. In a sense, it may have been a good point for the new-old president in terms of US domestic politics, and Trump also sent a message to the world: his diplomatic methods differ from his predecessor’s. The meeting ended earlier than planned, and the agreement on mineral resources was not signed.
Meanwhile, background negotiations were also taking place in Europe
French President Emmanuel Macron, following the Munich Security Conference, convened an extraordinary meeting in Paris to discuss the situation in Ukraine and security issues. However, the guest list sparked sharp debates: leaders from France, Germany, Poland, the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, and Denmark, as well as the NATO Secretary General and the President of the European Commission, participated, while many EU countries were not invited—nor was Ukraine, the very subject of the talks. This event did not serve to strengthen European unity, but rather showed that Europe itself is divided on how to handle the conflict in Ukraine. This is also evident from the fact that after the spectacular collapse of the Washington meeting, European leaders expressed their support for Zelensky, but there were dissenters as well. Macron sharply criticized Trump’s approach, emphasizing that Russia is the aggressor and Ukraine is the attacked party. Kaja Kallas, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs (who was not received by the US Secretary of State during the week of the Washington talks), stated that “the free world needs new leadership,” indicating that Europe should play a bigger role. Robert Fico, Slovakia’s prime minister, announced that his government would not support Ukraine financially or militarily in continuing the war. He stated that they respect if other countries continue to help Kyiv, but Slovakia distances itself from this. Fico also requested that the conclusions of the EU summit on March 6 include the requirement to restore gas transit through Ukraine to Slovakia and Western Europe. He warned that if alternative opinions are not considered at the summit, it could hinder the European Council’s agreement on Ukraine.
The evolution of Russian-American relations
While transatlantic relations became increasingly tense, Russian-American consultations did not stop. Representatives of the United States and Russia met in Istanbul, officially to discuss embassy operations, visas, and diplomatic relations, but Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov indicated that Russia would only be willing to negotiate if it gained additional Ukrainian territories.
Meanwhile, Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, in a Fox News interview on February 27, the day before the Washington meeting, said that the United States is interested not only in Ukraine’s but also in Russia’s mineral resources, once a peace agreement is reached. According to Witkoff, after the war ends, the US could have “ample opportunities for economic cooperation” with Russia, especially in the extraction of rare earth elements. At the same time, Putin also expressed openness to cooperating with foreign partners in mineral extraction, including sites located in Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine. Witkoff has become a key figure in shaping US-Russia negotiations, not only as Trump’s adviser. In early February, he traveled to Moscow, where he met with Putin, and also participated in US-Russian talks held in Saudi Arabia on February 18.
According to game theory, if a tripolar world order emerges—led by the USA, Russia, and China—two actors will inevitably join forces against the third. The US-Russian negotiations could be preparing for such a strategic shift, which would further exclude Europe from geopolitical decision-making.
When talking about Europe, we should not forget the United Kingdom, as both the Paris and London summits show, it is a particularly active participant in the negotiations. After the latter, Ukraine’s leader returned to Kyiv with not only kind words; the United Kingdom announced that it had agreed to accelerate $2.8 billion in loans, with the first tranche of financing expected this week. Furthermore, the British prime minister announced a new agreement allowing Ukraine to use $2 billion in British export financing to purchase more than 5,000 advanced air defense missiles to be produced in Belfast.
On January 16, 2025, the United Kingdom and Ukraine signed the “100-Year Partnership Agreement,” aimed at deepening security relations and strengthening cooperation for future generations. The agreement covers nine key pillars, including scientific and technological partnerships, healthcare, agri-tech, space research, and drone technology. The contract is expected to promote military cooperation, particularly in the Baltic Sea, Black Sea, and Sea of Azov regions, thereby strengthening Ukraine’s maritime security and curbing Russian aggression. The document designates the United Kingdom as a preferred partner in supporting Ukraine’s energy sector, critical raw materials strategy, and the development of green steel production. Although the agreement does not specify the extent of the UK’s concrete commitments, the devil is in the details: the strategic importance of critical raw materials is mentioned, which could have long-term economic and geopolitical consequences for both parties.
EU vs USA: Competition for Ukraine’s critical raw materials
Reports have emerged that the European Union offered Ukraine its own agreement on critical raw materials, while Washington was close to finalizing a similar deal with Kyiv. The European Commission later clarified: this is not a new agreement, but rather a revival and acceleration of the implementation of the 2021 cooperation agreement. This document defined the conditions under which the EU and Ukraine could cooperate in a mutually beneficial way in the field of raw materials. Séjourné emphasized that the EU is particularly interested in Ukrainian graphite, which could supply up to 10% of European graphite consumption by 2030. Thus, the EU does not intend to compete for a new agreement with Ukraine but would accelerate cooperation within existing frameworks. Additionally, the EU and Ukraine could launch their first joint projects in the field of critical raw materials, particularly graphite extraction, in March 2025. The EU now has the opportunity to establish closer cooperation with Ukraine in the field of raw materials, thereby ensuring its own strategic independence and supply security. This would not only bring economic benefits but would also further strengthen political ties with Kyiv, contributing to Ukraine’s stability and European integration.
Image source: Geological Survey of Sweden
