The ongoing tensions between the United States and Ukraine have taken a significant turn, as reports reveal that the US has demanded control over a vital gas pipeline in Ukraine. This move is part of a broader set of negotiations centered around a proposed minerals-for-weapons agreement, which has sparked controversy and criticism. Ukrainian officials have been vocal in expressing their dissatisfaction, describing the new US proposal as a "colonial shakedown" and an overreach into Ukraine's sovereignty.
The discussions, which took place on Friday between US and Ukrainian officials, have become increasingly strained. Sources close to the negotiations indicated that Washington's revised demands were "much more maximalist" compared to earlier drafts of the agreement. One of the key components of this latest proposal is a demand that the International Development Finance Corporation (IDFC), a US government agency, take control of a significant Soviet-era natural gas pipeline. The pipeline, which runs from Sudzha in western Russia to the Ukrainian city of Uzhhorod near the Slovakian border, has long served as a crucial link for transporting Russian gas to Europe.
The pipeline has been out of operation since January 1, following the expiration of Ukraine's five-year contract with Russia's state-run energy giant, Gazprom. The termination of the contract halted gas flow and suspended the hefty transit fees that had previously been shared between Ukraine and Russia, even amid the ongoing conflict. Despite this, the US has reportedly sought control over the pipeline as part of broader strategic interests in the region.
This demand comes at a time when former US President Donald Trump is pushing for a sweeping deal that would give American companies access to Ukraine's extensive mineral resources, including rare earth metals, oil, and gas. These resources have long been seen as valuable commodities that could help fuel America's energy and manufacturing sectors. However, the new terms of the deal, according to reports, no longer include additional weapons or security assurances for Ukraine in exchange. Instead, Trump is said to be demanding control over Ukraine's infrastructure and mineral rights as a form of "payback" for the military aid provided by the Biden administration.
The situation has drawn sharp criticism from Ukrainian officials, including President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Last autumn, Zelenskyy had proposed the idea of granting the US access to Ukraine’s underdeveloped mineral sector in exchange for military support. However, recent reports suggest that Zelenskyy is becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the pace of negotiations and the demands being made by the US. Trump, in particular, has reportedly expressed frustration with what he perceives as Zelenskyy's reluctance to follow through with the agreement. According to sources, Trump warned Zelenskyy that he would face "big problems" if he failed to sign the deal.
Zelenskyy, speaking to reporters on Thursday, defended his position, stating that he was simply "defending what belongs to Ukraine." He emphasized that any deal should be mutually beneficial to both the United States and Ukraine, reiterating his desire for a fair agreement. He suggested that the revenues from the country's mineral resources should be split "50-50" between Ukraine and the US. Zelenskyy also expressed his willingness to modernize Ukraine's infrastructure but made it clear that he would not agree to a deal that undermined Ukraine's sovereignty or economic interests. The US Treasury confirmed that "technical" talks on the matter are still ongoing, but there has been no final resolution as of yet.
Volodymyr Landa, a senior economist at the Kyiv Centre for Economic Strategy, was one of the many critics of the US's stance. He argued that the American demands were excessive and resembled a form of "colonial-type" pressure. Landa suggested that the US was trying to extract as much as it could from Ukraine, which he believed would be difficult for the Ukrainian government to accept. This growing sense of unease is further compounded by the perception that the US is prioritizing its own economic and strategic interests over Ukraine's sovereignty and long-term stability.
Adding to the diplomatic complexity, Keith Kellogg, the US special envoy to Ukraine, has tried to walk back controversial remarks he made earlier regarding the potential partition of Ukraine. In an interview with The Times, Kellogg had suggested the idea of a division of Ukraine "almost like Berlin after World War Two," a statement that caused an uproar in Ukraine and other parts of the international community. In response, Kellogg took to X (formerly Twitter) to clarify that his comments had been misinterpreted, explaining that he was referring to a post-ceasefire "resiliency force" meant to support Ukraine's sovereignty, not a partition of the country.
Meanwhile, the broader geopolitical implications of these developments are still unfolding. On Friday, Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in St. Petersburg, where he reportedly floated a proposal to give Russia control over four Ukrainian provinces that it has been demanding. Some of these provinces are still under Ukrainian control, and their loss would have significant implications for Ukraine’s territorial integrity and its ongoing struggle against Russian aggression. The proposal suggests a shift in US foreign policy under Trump's influence, possibly opening the door to a more conciliatory stance toward Russia and its territorial claims in Ukraine.
The escalating tensions and shifting negotiations over Ukraine's resources, infrastructure, and territorial integrity signal a period of uncertainty for the country. As the US and Ukraine navigate their complex relationship, the international community will be closely watching how these developments unfold, with concerns about the long-term consequences for Ukraine's sovereignty, its economy, and its geopolitical alliances. The coming weeks and months will likely determine whether Ukraine can maintain control over its resources and infrastructure or whether it will have to make concessions to satisfy external demands.
