Connect with us

World

U.S. Pressing Tough Demands in Revised Deal for Ukraine’s Minerals

Published

on

U.S. Pressing Tough Demands in Revised Deal for Ukraine’s Minerals

Ukraine on Saturday was seriously considering a revised American proposal for its vast natural resources that contains virtually the same provisions that Kyiv previously rejected as too onerous, according to a draft document of the new proposal.

Some of the terms appear even tougher than in a previous draft.

The proposed agreement would significantly shift onto a mercantile footing the United States’ three-year alliance with Ukraine in the largest war in Europe since World War II. The conflict to date has largely been seen as a struggle to secure Ukraine and the European continent from an authoritarian threat from Russia.

The Trump administration’s terms could also strip Ukraine of funds that are now mostly invested in the country’s military and defense industry, and that could help rebuild the country once the war is over.

The terms of the new proposal, which is dated Feb. 21 and was reviewed by The New York Times, call for Ukraine to relinquish half of its revenues from natural resources, including minerals, gas and oil, as well as earnings from ports and other infrastructure. A similar demand was made in a previous version of the deal, dated Feb. 14 and reviewed by The Times.

Advertisement

Ukraine had been floating the prospect of a partnership with the United States on its valuable natural resources as a way to persuade Mr. Trump to provide additional support for its war effort. President Volodymyr Zelensky had also been seeking security guarantees for Ukraine, a condition that was absent in the first draft agreement presented to him last week, prompting him to decline to sign the deal.

But while the new document calls for a series of commitments from Ukraine it still does not provide any specific commitments in return from the U.S. to help Ukraine sustain its war effort. It says, however, that the United States intends to provide a long-term financial commitment to help Ukraine develop economically.

The new document states that revenues from Ukraine’s resources will be directed to a fund in which the United States holds 100 percent financial interest, and that Ukraine should contribute to the fund until it reaches $500 billion — the amount Mr. Trump has demanded from the war-torn country in exchange for American aid.

That figure far exceeds the country’s actual revenues from resources, which were $1.1 billion last year, and more than four times the value of U.S. aid committed to Ukraine so far. The $500 billion sum was not mentioned in the previous version of the deal, though Mr. Trump had said publicly that was what he wanted.

It is unclear whether Mr. Trump wants it in exchange for past American military and financial assistance, or whether it would also apply to future support.

Advertisement

Ukraine has not said whether it would agree to the deal under the proposed terms. Ruslan Stefanchuk, the speaker of Ukraine’s Parliament, told local media that a government-level group would begin working on the agreement on Monday and that Ukraine wanted to receive specific security guarantees in exchange for access to its resources.

Ukraine has tried to resist a total capitulation to American demands on natural resources, but has faced intense pressure from President Trump, who views access to Ukraine’s vast mineral wealth as necessary repayment for the billions the United States has provided Kyiv for its war against Russia.

The document suggests the United States may send more aid to Ukraine in the future — but at a high price. It states that Ukraine will be required to contribute to the fund a sum equal to twice the amount the United States might give to Ukraine after the deal is signed.

The revised proposal states that the United States could reinvest a portion of the revenue into Ukraine’s postwar reconstruction, including by investing in the development of the country’s subsoil assets and infrastructure.

The new draft agreement also includes provisions for revenues from territories currently occupied by Russia, in the event they were freed: The share of resource revenues contributed to the fund from liberated areas would be 66 percent. Russia currently occupies about a fifth of Ukraine’s territory, including significant portions of the resource-rich Donbas region.

Advertisement

The document reviewed by The Times outlines the establishment of a fund to receive revenues from resource extraction and other sources. A second agreement, described as the Fund Agreement, would be concluded later to work out specific details.

Keith Kellogg, Mr. Trump’s special envoy to Ukraine and Russia, visited Kyiv from Wednesday to Friday and discussed the new proposal with Mr. Zelensky. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent first met with Mr. Zelensky recently to discuss the deal, and more recently Mr. Trump’s commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, became involved the negotiations, according to a person familiarly with the discussion.

A potential deal for Ukraine’s resources has been a major point of dispute in a rapidly deteriorating relationship between Mr. Zelensky and Mr. Trump. Their interactions became acrimonious in the last week as the American president assailed Mr. Zelensky in highly personal terms, calling him “an unelected dictator.”

The Ukrainian president, in turn, said that Mr. Trump was living in a “disinformation web” after Mr. Trump falsely claimed that Ukraine had started the war against Russia.

Mr. Zelensky’s initial hesitancy, and comments that were perceived by Mr. Trump and cabinet officials as public criticism of the president prompted a fierce backlash from the Trump administration. That possibly led to the addition of further demands written into the agreement, according to drafts and people familiar with the discussions of the deal on the Ukrainian side.

Advertisement

Two of the people who had the new proposal described to them said that one of the few changes made by the United States that could satisfy Ukraine was the removal of a clause placing the deal under the jurisdiction of a New York court. The provision had raised concerns on the Ukrainian side, because it could weaken Ukraine’s legal standing in case of a dispute.

Whether Ukraine can meet the terms requested by the Trump administration is unclear.

Ukraine is not a major natural resource exporting country, as the most dynamic spheres of its economy have been agriculture, steel and other metal smelting and outsourced programming work for Silicon Valley companies. Revenues from natural resources comprised 2.5 percent of budget revenue last year.

Ukrainian officials and energy experts also say that any new fields would likely take years and significant investment to develop. Much exploration remains to be done to assess the true value of the country’s critical minerals, they say, and administrative and legislative obstacles still hinder foreign investment in the sector.

The Trump administration has suggested that the mere presence of American economic interests in Ukraine would be a security guarantee for Kyiv. Top U.S. cabinet members have pressed Mr. Zelensky to sign the deal in recent days.

Advertisement

“President Zelensky is going to sign that deal, and you will see that in the very short term,” the U.S. national security adviser, Mike Waltz, said on Friday. “And that is good for Ukraine. What better could you have for Ukraine than to be in an economic partnership with the United States?”

Speaking in the Oval Office later Friday, Mr. Trump said, “We’re going to either sign a deal, or there’s going to be a lot of problems with them.”

Maggie Haberman contributed reporting.

Advertisement

World

Mexico pyramid shooter who took hostages and killed 1 is identified

Published

on

Mexico pyramid shooter who took hostages and killed 1 is identified

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A gunman who fatally shot a Canadian tourist and wounded more than a dozen others atop a historic pyramid in Mexico on Monday has been identified, according to officials.

Authorities identified the gunman as 27-year-old Julio Cesar Jasso, a Mexican national, according to a state official who spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to discuss the case publicly.

Jasso later died by suicide after turning the gun on himself, and security officials found a gun, a knife and ammunition. Authorities said he acted alone, with the State of Mexico government confirming he was the sole assailant on Monday night.

Officials said seven of the victims were struck by gunfire, while others were hurt in the chaos as people scrambled to get down from the pyramids, with some falling during the panic.

Advertisement

EX-TV REPORTER ALLEGEDLY TURNED ROADSIDE GUNMAN, GRILLED VICTIMS ON ETHNICITY BEFORE OPENING FIRE

The Pyramid of the Moon and the Pyramid of the Sun are seen along with smaller structures lining the Avenue of the Dead in Teotihuacan, Mexico, on March 19, 2020. A gunman killed a Canadian tourist and injured several others before taking his own life at the popular site, authorities said Monday. (Rebecca Blackwell/AP)

Those hospitalized included tourists from several countries, among them the United States, Colombia, Russia, Brazil and Canada, authorities said. The victims ranged in age from 6 to 61.

Footage circulating in local media appears to show the suspect positioned atop the structure as visitors rushed for safety below, with gunfire echoing across the site.

Police and forensic workers stand on a pyramid after authorities said a gunman opened fire in Teotihuacan, Mexico, Monday, April 20, 2026. (AP Photo/Eduardo Verdugo)

Advertisement

The Teotihuacan complex, located just outside Mexico City, is one of the country’s most visited archaeological landmarks, drawing millions of international visitors each year to its towering pre-Hispanic structures.

MOSCOW-BORN GUNMAN DEAD AFTER KYIV SHOOTING RAMPAGE LEAVES AT LEAST 6 DEAD, 14 WOUNDED: ZELENSKYY

The shooting took place shortly after 11:30 a.m. when dozens of tourists were at the top of the Pyramid of the Moon.

Security measures at the site have changed in recent years, with routine entry screenings no longer consistently in place, according to a local guide.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum wrote on social media that the shooting would be investigated and that she was in touch with the Canadian Embassy.

Advertisement

SUSPECTED BLUE CITY GUNMEN KILL INNOCENT GIRL IN REVENGE SHOOTING AT HOME: SHERIFF

“What happened today in Teotihuacán deeply pains us. I express my most sincere solidarity with the affected individuals and their families,” she wrote.

Anita Anand, Canada’s foreign affairs minister, said on X that as a “result of a horrific act of gun violence, a Canadian was killed and another wounded in Teotihuacán” and that her “thoughts are with their family and loved ones.”

People visit the Pyramid of the Sun in the pre-Hispanic city of Teotihuacan near Mexico City, Mexico, on March 21, 2024, following the spring equinox. (Henry Romero/Reuters)

Later in the evening, U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Ronald Johnson also expressed “deep concern” and sadness over the deaths and numerous injuries, and said in a post on X that the U.S. is “ready to provide support as needed while Mexican authorities continue their investigation.”

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The National Institute of Anthropology and History said in a statement that the Teotihuacán archaeological site will remain closed until further notice.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

World

Appetite among NATO members to join Iran war ‘very limited’, says Eide

Published

on

Appetite among NATO members to join Iran war ‘very limited’, says Eide

Norway has pushed back against criticism from US President Donald Trump over what he described as “zero” European support in the conflict with Iran.

ADVERTISEMENT


ADVERTISEMENT

“NATO is a defensive alliance. It is not an attack alliance,” Norway’s Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide told Euronews’ Europe Today flagship morning show.

Eide said NATO members are focused on safeguarding key global trade routes, including keeping the Strait of Hormuz open. “NATO countries are doing something, but it’s not as a party to a conflict,” he added.

Trump has repeatedly criticised NATO allies for not backing Washington in the Iran conflict. He raised the issue again during a White House meeting earlier this month with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.

Advertisement

Eide argued that there had been no prior preparation or consensus within the alliance. As a result, there is “very limited appetite” among member states to join the war.

He said that while both the US and Iran may have reasons to end the conflict, “the sides are far apart”, with negotiations hindered by opposing demands.

On Monday, Trump said the United States would maintain its blockade of Iranian ports until Tehran agrees to a peace deal.

Still, Eide pointed to signs of “some progress”, noting the broader global impact of the conflict. “This is not only an issue for the two sides, but it affects the whole world economy,” he said.

Addressing a European diplomatic push to establish a Palestinian state, Eide reiterated support for a two-state solution based on long-standing United Nations principles. However, he acknowledged that such an outcome is “not around the corner”.

Advertisement

He added that a two-state solution is also in Israel’s interest, describing it as “the only viable solution for real peace in a very troubled region”.

Norway, alongside Spain and Ireland, recognised the State of Palestine in 2024.

Continue Reading

World

Iran War Live Updates: Trump Officials and Iran Plan New Talks Despite Mixed Messages

Published

on

Iran War Live Updates: Trump Officials and Iran Plan New Talks Despite Mixed Messages

The United States military last week extended its blockade on vessels coming in and out of Iranian ports to the waters of the wider world, declaring that it would pursue any ship aiding Iran, regardless of location on the high seas or flag.

The U.S. “will actively pursue any Iranian-flagged vessel or any vessel attempting to provide material support to Iran,” Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday, noting that the American troops beyond the Middle East will engage in operations to thwart Iranian shipping.

The extension of the blockade comes as the economically vital Strait of Hormuz remains all but closed to commercial traffic and the two-week cease-fire between the United States and Iran nears an end. The move aligns longstanding American economic policies targeting Iran with the current military campaign against it, maritime and military law experts say.

But it raises a host of legal and practical questions.

“War is a messy thing not just on the combat side but under national and international law,” said James R. Holmes, chair of maritime strategy at the Naval War College.

Advertisement

“From a legal standpoint, a blockade is an act of war, so the blockade probably is legal to the extent Operation Epic Fury is,” he said using the name of the U.S. military campaign against Iran.

Since Congress has not declared war against Iran, no formal state of war exists between the United States and the Islamic Republic. But Mr. Holmes noted that “undeclared wars are more the rule than the exception in U.S. history,” with joint resolutions of Congress, United Nations Security Council resolutions and NATO decisions invoked to justify fighting.

“This campaign may be more unilateral than most, but it is not without precedent,” he said.

Under international law, the legality of the blockade is “more ambiguous,” said Jennifer Kavanagh, a senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, a foreign policy think tank in Washington.

A state-organized rally in support of the supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei in Tehran on Friday.Credit…Arash Khamooshi for The New York Times

For a blockade to be legal, Ms. Kavanagh said, it must be “effective,” meaning that it is both enforceable and enforced. Some would argue that a “‘global blockade’ is not permissible in conception” because it is overly broad, she said.

Advertisement

Still, expansive blockades have taken place throughout history, including during World War II, when states enforced naval blockades worldwide other than in neutral territorial seas. Over the centuries before that, the British blockaded France throughout the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, and during the War of American Independence, the colonies and their allies raided British shipping as far away as the Indian Ocean.

Enforcing expansive blockades is difficult, however.

“The seven seas are a big place, and the largest navy or coast guard is tiny by comparison,” Mr. Holmes said. Whether the U.S. blockade ultimately is deemed “effective,” legally speaking, will depend on whether the U.S. has enough assets like ships, aircraft, boarding crews and intelligence gathering to enforce it.

The blockade does not have to be “airtight” to meet the legal test, Mr. Holmes said, and assessing its effectiveness will be tough for outside observers in any case.

Enforcement may also have to be somewhat selective, he suggested.

Advertisement

“Now, it is possible our leadership might quietly let a ship proceed when it suits the national interest,” Mr. Holmes said. “For instance, with a summit coming up between President Trump and General Secretary Xi” — Mr. Trump is to meet with China’s leader, Xi Jinping, in May — “Washington might not want to ruffle feathers by obstructing China’s oil imports.”

The expanded blockade is part of a longstanding economic campaign against Iran, but it represents something of a tactical change for the Trump administration.

Earlier in the war, the United States temporarily lifted sanctions on Iranian oil at sea to ease the pressure on global energy prices. And before imposing a blockade on Iranian ports last week, the U.S. allowed Iranian tankers to transit the Strait of Hormuz for the same reason.

Now Washington seems to be returning its focus to keeping pressure on Iran.

“The blockade is a wartime extension of existing U.S. economic sanctions against the Iranian regime,” said James Kraska, professor of international maritime law and a visiting professor at Harvard Law School. In peacetime, he said, the sanctions were a “powerful tool to weaken the Iranian economy.” Now, he said, the blockade serves as a “kinetic expansion.”

Advertisement

General Caine’s announcement about the expanded naval blockade came one day after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced “Operation Economic Fury,” an effort he called the “financial equivalent” of a bombing campaign. It includes secondary sanctions on institutions internationally, like banks, that have dealings with Iran.

The expanded blockade “marks a notable escalation by the United States,” said Ms. Kavanagh.

Still, she said, it is unlikely to significantly change Iranian calculations.

“For Iran, this war is existential and it is not going to cave easily or quickly,” she said. “Economic pressure may work over the very long term, but Trump seems too impatient for a deal to wait it out.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending