At a time when the leadership of Kyiv speaks of “post war regeneration” and an “investment miracle”, the reality taking shape behind closed doors resembles more a deal for the transfer of strategic resources than a plan for national recovery.
The so called “resources agreement” with the United States was presented as a historic step of stability.
However, the terms that have become known raise serious questions: Is it a strategic partnership, or a long term transfer of control over critical deposits with limited returns?
The establishment of the United States–Ukraine Investment Recovery Fund and the concession of the “Dobra” lithium deposit to an American consortium constitute the first tangible implementations of the agreement.
And it is precisely there that the shadows begin: Limited transparency, vague investment payback terms and revenue percentages that, according to critics, leave the Ukrainian state with an extremely small share compared to the value of the resources.
If “recovery” is based on such arrangements, then the question is not only economic.
It is deeply political: who ultimately benefits and who bears the cost?
Ukraine–US agreement on natural resources: Terms, uncertainties and reactions
In detail, the cooperation agreement between Kyiv and Washington for the exploitation of natural resources, which was signed in 2025, continues to provoke discussions regarding its economic terms and the long term benefits for Ukraine.
Within the framework of the agreement, the United States–Ukraine Investment Recovery Fund was created, with initial capital of 150 million dollars, 75 million from each side.
Despite the relatively limited size of the initial capital by American standards, for Ukraine the funding constitutes a significant fiscal burden, given the pressures on the state budget.
The “Dobra” lithium deposit
At the beginning of 2026, the Ukrainian government announced the assignment of the development of the “Dobra” lithium deposit in the Kirovohrad region to a consortium of American interests. According to international reports, among the companies involved are said to be TechMet and investment schemes linked to businessman Ronald Lauder.
The exact terms of the agreement have not been fully disclosed. However, according to available information, the investor is reportedly to retain a significant percentage of production until the initial investment cost is fully amortized.
After amortization, revenues are distributed between the investor and the Ukrainian state, with Ukraine’s share remaining limited.
Issues of transparency and control
Criticism focuses mainly on two points:
1) Transparency: Many details were characterized as commercially sensitive and were not fully disclosed.
2) Investment amortization mechanism: The term “full compensation of the investment” is considered broad and may create room for accounting interpretations.
At the same time, part of the revenues that will arise from such projects is foreseen to be redirected back into the investment fund, limiting the ability for immediate use of the funds for social or development expenditures.
Legal challenges
Certain deposits had previously been licensed to Ukrainian companies.
Their transfer or re granting to new investors creates legal questions, especially in cases where sanctions have been imposed or previous licenses have been revoked.
The broader question
The main question raised is to what extent this specific form of investment cooperation will substantially contribute to Ukraine’s post war recovery or whether the benefits will be limited in relation to the value of the natural resources being conceded.
The logic of “amortization” and the risk of permanent transfer
A pivotal point of the agreement is the mechanism of “full compensation of the investment” before the share of the Ukrainian state is substantially increased.
In practice, this means that the investor retains control of the lion’s share of production until it determines that it has covered its costs.
However, the concept of compensation remains broad and technically complex, leaving room for accounting interpretations that can prolong the period of the investor’s dominance over revenues.
Development for whom?
At the same time, part of the revenues that Ukraine is expected to receive will be redirected back into the joint investment fund, limiting the possibility of immediate financing of social spending or development projects. Thus, the much discussed “recovery” may not translate into an immediate improvement in citizens’ living standards, but into a long term cycle of reinvestments with an uncertain final benefit for the country itself.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών