The upcoming minerals investment and resource exploitation agreement between the United States and Ukraine, set to be signed by Presidents Trump and Zelensky in Washington, DC, is a critical moment in both geopolitics and the future of the Ukraine-Russia war. This agreement, which focuses on joint development of Ukraine’s vast mineral resources—including lithium, rare earth metals, and other strategic materials vital for high-tech industries—reflects a long-term US interest in Ukraine’s economic resilience. However, its geopolitical implications extend far beyond investment and trade; they will influence military strategy, diplomatic negotiations, and Russia’s own calculations regarding the war.
This development raises the central question: How much longer will the war between Ukraine and Russia continue, and what scenarios could bring it to an end?
Geopolitical and Economic Stakes of the US-Ukraine Agreement
The agreement strengthens Ukraine’s economic foundation and, by extension, its war effort. Russia’s military strategy has long relied on degrading Ukraine’s economy through targeted strikes on energy infrastructure and Black Sea shipping lanes. A stronger Ukrainian economy, bolstered by Western investment, prolongs its ability to resist Russia’s offensive, increasing the costs for Moscow.
At the same time, for the US, securing access to Ukraine’s mineral resources reduces dependence on China, a country that currently dominates the global supply of rare earth elements. From a strategic perspective, this positions Ukraine not just as a battlefield, but as an economic asset in the larger Great Power competition between the US, China, and Russia.
Consider now some of the scenarios that could follow Friday's signature of the US-Ukraine agreement:
Scenario 1: US Pressure on Russia Forces a Negotiated Peace
If the U.S. escalates economic and diplomatic pressure on Russia, we could see a scenario where Moscow is forced into serious peace talks. Pressure could take several forms:
• Increased Sanctions Enforcement: While existing Western sanctions have harmed Russia’s economy, they have not yet crippled it. Stricter enforcement mechanisms—such as secondary sanctions targeting countries like China, India, and Turkey that still trade with Russia—could create financial instability for the Kremlin.
• Leveraging the BRICS Divide: Russia has relied on economic partnerships within the BRICS bloc (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) to circumvent Western sanctions. If the US successfully pressures India or Brazil to scale back Russian imports, Moscow could face an economic crisis that makes the war unsustainable.
• Military Deterrence Measures: While the US has been cautious about direct involvement, a scenario where NATO provides Ukraine with advanced long-range weaponry capable of striking deep into Russian territory could force the Kremlin to rethink its war aims.
In this scenario, Russia—facing a deteriorating economic situation—may seek to negotiate an exit strategy. This could involve territorial compromises, an internationally supervised demilitarised zone, or even a broader European security framework that includes Russia in some fashion.
Scenario 2: Continued Stalemate with Minimal US Intervention
A second scenario, the relative likelihood of which may turn upon the temperament of President Trump, is that the US provides continued but measured support to Ukraine without significantly increasing pressure on Russia. In this case, the conflict remains a prolonged war of attrition, with neither side achieving a decisive victory.
• Ukraine’s Defence Strategy: Ukraine could maintain a defensive posture, using Western-supplied weapons to hold the line while integrating economic aid from the U.S. and EU to sustain its war effort.
• Russia’s War Economy: The Kremlin has increasingly shifted to a wartime economy, ramping up domestic weapons production and using state-controlled firms to sustain military logistics. As long as Russia can continue producing weapons at scale—often with covert assistance from China, Iran, and North Korea—it has no immediate incentive to end the war.
• Western Fatigue and Political Divisions: This scenario is reinforced by the possibility of waning Western support, particularly if European governments grow reluctant to provide military aid due to economic pressures at home that yield political transformations in elections towards left-leaning and right-leaning political parties that seek compromise with Russia.
This could extend the war by several more years, with occasional ceasefires or temporary truces but no clear resolution.
Scenario 3: Deployment of European Peacekeepers in Ukraine
One of the more intriguing possibilities is the introduction of European peacekeeping forces into Ukraine—a proposal that has reportedly been discussed at high levels. However, Russia has today officially rejected the idea, calling it an unacceptable provocation.
Would Russia Have a Choice?
While Moscow has dismissed the proposal, the reality is that it may eventually have to accept some form of external security presence in Ukraine, particularly if:
1. Ukraine’s Military Continues to Gain Strength: If Ukraine, with Western backing, regains more occupied territory, Russia may be forced to negotiate terms that include an international peacekeeping force to oversee the ceasefire.
2. Internal Political Shifts in Russia: If economic and political instability inside Russia weakens Putin’s grip on power, a new government could be more willing to accept European mediation.
3. Turkey’s Position Becomes More Crucial: Any military presence in Ukraine would require Turkey’s approval due to the Montreux Convention, which governs military access to the Black Sea. If Ankara supports a European peacekeeping mission, it could place additional pressure on Russia to accept it.
Would a US or European Military Presence Be Necessary?
For a peacekeeping force to be effective, it would need significant military backing. The question is whether European nations could provide the necessary security guarantees on their own, or if a U.S. naval and air presence would be required.
• European Capabilities: While France, Germany, and the UK have expanded military budgets in response to the war, they lack the same rapid deployment capabilities as the U.S. A European-led force would likely require heavy logistical and intelligence support from Washington.
• US Role: If Trump were to support such a peacekeeping initiative, it might be framed as a way to “end endless wars” while still containing Russia. However, Trump’s previous reluctance to engage in European security matters makes US involvement uncertain at this juncture. The US may nevertheless reveal its true hand on military assistance to Ukraine once the agreement on mineral resources has been signed and initial steps are taken to implement it.
The Economic Cost of Prolonged War versus Peace
Regardless of the outcome, Ukraine’s economic recovery hinges on the war’s resolution. The latest estimates suggest that Ukraine will require at least $524 billion over the next decade for reconstruction.
• If the War Continues: Ukraine’s economy will remain in survival mode, relying on Western aid and struggling to attract foreign investment.
• If Peace is Achieved: A comprehensive security framework would allow Ukraine to rebuild infrastructure, reopen export routes, and regain access to global markets.
Conclusion: The Most Likely Path Forward
The war between Ukraine and Russia may or may not end abruptly, but several key factors could accelerate peace negotiations. If the US and its allies exert coordinated economic and military pressure on Moscow, Russia may be forced to negotiate a settlement. However, if the conflict remains at a stalemate with limited Western intervention, the war could drag on indefinitely.
The deployment of European peacekeepers remains a contentious issue, with Russia strongly opposed but potentially unable to prevent it if diplomatic conditions shift.
Ultimately, Ukraine’s long-term stability will depend not only on military outcomes but on economic resilience. The US-Ukraine minerals agreement is a step toward strengthening Ukraine’s post-war recovery, but as long as the war continues, its full potential cannot be realised. That might be precisely the point that gives the United States the incentive to engage in the war on Ukraine's side more decisively.