The minerals agreement lacks safety guarantees, but... media has uncovered the details.

The framework agreement regarding U.S. access to revenue from Ukraine's natural resources does not provide direct security guarantees. However, the document "appears to be a sufficiently beneficial deal for both parties."

This information was reported by Reuters, citing four experts a day before the leaders' meeting in Washington. The publication also has a draft of the agreement.

It mentions the establishment of a joint "Reconstruction Investment Fund" managed by the U.S. and Ukraine. It is noted that while the project includes "soothing words," the United States does not offer Kyiv the security guarantees that it seeks.

The agreement stipulates a 50% contribution from the Ukrainian government to the fund based on the future monetization of any state natural resources. However, figures, timelines, or details about the fund's management are not provided.

Brian McGarry, an associate professor of international law at Leiden University who advised the countries during the negotiations for the agreement, believes this is not surprising. This is exactly the format that the framework deal entails.

"It creates commitments for cooperation but lacks binding specific defense obligations. This is precisely what we see in this agreement. The U.S. did not provide concrete guarantees," McGarry stated.

At the same time, the document "seems to be a sufficiently beneficial agreement for both parties." This opinion was expressed by one of the publication's sources.

It is noted that despite the absence of security guarantees, the terms of the agreement for Ukraine have softened. Trump will abandon his initial demand for $500 billion in compensation for previously provided military support.

The document states that funds will be reinvested "to promote the security and prosperity of Ukraine." This will be included in the fund agreement concerning future financial distributions. The draft also notes that the U.S. government "will maintain a long-term financial commitment to developing a stable and economically prosperous Ukraine," but it does not specify what this means.

According to McGarry, details will be worked out during negotiations that could lead to the signing of the agreement. The expert pointed out that the draft explicitly states that in the upcoming negotiations regarding the fund, Ukraine and the U.S. "aim to avoid conflicts with Ukraine's commitments" on its path to joining the European Union.

"At least, in principle, there is interesting political support for this process", he said.

Tim Meyer, a professor of international law at Duke University, stated that the framework agreement contains no references to a dispute resolution mechanism. He noted that Washington's share in the future fund also remains open for discussion.

"The agreement demonstrates a certain uncertainty on the American side regarding whether the government has the authority to participate in the fund envisioned by the agreement," he said.

The draft proposes a "unique and unprecedented approach" that is not found in other national agreements. This opinion was expressed by Guillermo Christensen, a national security and international trade expert at the American law firm K&L Gates.

As reported by "Telegraph," U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated that the work on the framework agreement regarding minerals has been completed. The document is ready to be signed by the presidents of both countries.