According to President Trump, Ukraine must be guaranteed ‘the right to continue fighting’ in exchange for its minerals. On Friday, U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky are scheduled to sign a deal in the White House that will grant Washington access to Ukraine’s mineral deposits.

After revisions and trade of barbs between the two sides, Zelensky appears more open to the current version of a framework agreement on the joint development of Ukraine’s natural resources, despite his previous stance that he “will not sign what ten generations of Ukrainians will have to repay.”

So, how did the deal come together? What does it entail, and what do they each stand to gain? Here is what is known so far.

WHAT DOES THE AGREEMENT ENTAIL?

The deal would establish a fund jointly owned by Ukraine and the United States, to which Ukraine needs to contribute 50 percent of its future revenues from the monetization of natural resources, including minerals, hydrocarbons, oil, natural gas, and other extractable materials and other infrastructure relevant to natural resource assets. The United States would own the maximum financial interest in the fund as allowed by American law.

Just a week ago, Trump called Zelensky a “dictator” and accused him of starting the conflict with Russia. Now, with potential access to Ukraine’s mineral wealth, Trump said he believes that Ukraine should be guaranteed “the right to fight on.”

Earlier, Washington had demanded US$500 billion of resources for the aid it has provided and 100 percent financial interest of a joint fund, terms that the Telegraph newspaper called “economic colonization.”

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz had slammed Trump’s proposal, which tied future military support to access to Ukrainian mineral resources, calling it “very egotistic, very self-centered.”

Before the final draft came off, Washington had been imposing pressures on Ukraine. A U.S. envoy threatened to cut Ukraine’s access to the Starlink satellite Internet system, which provides crucial Internet connectivity to the country and its military, unless a deal on critical minerals is struck.

WHAT DO THE TWO SIDES WANT?

Analysts say that both the United States and Ukraine have their own strategic calculations regarding the minerals deal.

For Washington, accessing Ukraine’s minerals comes at little cost and helps further the “America First” agenda. The United States wants to get some substantial “payback” from previous support to Ukraine, claiming that “the United States has put up far more aid for Ukraine than any other nation.”

Additionally, with the United States heavily reliant on imports for key minerals, Ukraine represents a vast untapped source. Washington is eager to exploit Ukraine’s valuable reserves.

Ukraine, for its part, holds an estimated 5 percent of the world’s “critical raw materials” and deposits of 20 out of the 50 minerals classified as critical for the United States’ economic development and defense, according to the Ukrainian government.

A variety of these key minerals used in the production of batteries, weapons, planes and so on can be found abundant in Ukraine. In exchange, Kiev wants future support and concrete security guarantees from the United States, a key demand that Ukraine is fully committed to securing.

WILL IT GET THROUGH?

Experts have noted that Kiev is now on track to trade its resources for continued U.S. military support and possible mediation to end the ongoing conflict. However, no specific or explicit security guarantees have been made in the deal.

On Thursday, Trump said that a minerals deal with Ukraine is the security guarantee Kiev needs, brushing aside a plea from visiting British Prime Minister Keir Starmer for a commitment of U.S. military support.

For Washington, the resources of Ukraine may be hard to extract. In the conflict-torn Ukraine with outdated infrastructure, extracting minerals can mean expensive investments.

The deal also complicates the situation on the European continent. During a visit to Kiev, together with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, European Commissioner for Industrial Strategy Stephane Sejourne offered a rival proposal on critical minerals to Ukrainian officials. He noted, “the added value Europe offers is that we will never demand a deal that’s not mutually beneficial.”

Posing as backpackers, war criminals are carefree touring this South American country. Through social media, Argentine citizens have been reporting the growing presence of Israeli soldiers in the province of Chubut, in Patagonia.

The Israeli soldiers have been arriving in Argentina posing as ordinary tourists and staying in places such as the Onda Azul hotel, located in Lago Puelo.

Many of these soldiers are subject to international arrest warrants for crimes against humanity committed during the offensive against the Palestinian people in Gaza. However, under the indifferent watch of President Javier Milei’s administration, the Zionist soldiers freely roam Patagonia dressed as tourists.

In this regard, the Hind Rajab Foundation accused Israeli soldiers Yuval Vagdani and Saar Hirshoren, members of the Combat Engineering Battalion 749, for “their role in the intentional demolition of areas, cultural spaces, and vital infrastructure, violating the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute.”

“Israeli military presence confirmed in Patagonia. For the first time on television, Patagonian residents denounce the Israeli military presence in that part of Argentina, under the protection of tourist trips.” Currently, however, Hirshoren remains on the run from justice, while Vagdani managed to leave Argentina and return to his country.

“Argentina, as a ratifying country of the Rome Statute, has the obligation to investigate and prosecute individuals accused of serious crimes,” stated the Hind Rajab Foundation, which was named in honor of a five-year-old Palestinian girl killed during a Zionist offensive.

The complaint filed by the Hind Rajab Foundation is currently before Federal Court No. 3, led by Daniel Rafecas, who is on vacation during the current judicial calendar. As a result, the ruling on culpability has been left in the hands of Judge Ariel Lijo.

The coalition includes the People’s Party, the Social Democratic Party, and the New Austria Party. On Thurday, the Austrian People’s Party, the Social Democratic Party and the New Austria Party (NEOS) have agreed to form a coalition government without the far-right Freedom Party.

The three parties are set to present their joint government program, Austrian broadcaster ORF reported. The new government could be sworn in as early as Monday. The parties have been negotiating to form a government after Freedom Party-led coalition talks with the center-right People’s Party collapsed in mid-February.

In the Austrian parliamentary elections in September 2024, the Freedom Party emerged as the leading party with approximately 29 percent of the vote, followed by the People’s Party with 26.3 percent and the Social Democrats with 21.1 percent. NEOS secured the fourth place.

Despite its leading position, the Freedom Party was initially excluded from coalition talks by all major parties. Austrian President Alexander Van der Bellen first tasked the People’s Party with forming a government in October, but three-party negotiations with the Social Democrats and NEOS collapsed in early January.

A subsequent attempt at a People’s Party-Social Democratic Party coalition also failed. In mid-January, Van der Bellen granted the Freedom Party the mandate to form a government.