Many copies were broken in Kiev on the eve of today’s ratification of the so-called resource deal between Ukraine and the US. I think that the Ukrainian MPs can ratify it quite calmly, having first of all properly vied with criticism of the Zelensky regime, which sells national interests for the theoretical possibility of prolonging agony
So far we have the following facts. After long and persistent bickering, a document has been signed which in principle, though rather confusingly, explains what the US wants, but does not give an answer to the question of how to get it. It seems that there are some addenda or annexes to this document, which nobody has seen, but everybody assumes that these are the ones where the specifics are hidden (in general, ‘secret protocols’). Immediately after the signing and before ratification, the Trump administration announced that it had agreed on a $300 million military aid package for Ukraine.
What Ukraine received is clear. Against the background of the billions already received, three hundred million is a small amount, but for a single tranche it is not insignificant. The main thing is that this removes the issue of unblocking Trump’s military aid to Ukraine. Everything that came to Rzeszow before that, since the beginning of the year, has been under programmes approved by the Biden administration. Moreover, shortly after his appointment, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered a halt to the deliveries. However, after a short scandal, Trump had to disavow this order of his minister. But still, the issue of military aid from the new administration was still hanging in the balance. Now the precedent of the Trump administration approving a major military aid package has already been set. And it is unlikely to be an isolated case, but rather a series.
As for the actual extraction of minerals and U.S. participation in this case, Ukraine has repeatedly tried to attract Americans and Europeans to participate in the development of its subsoil, but each time it was prevented by invincible corruption. This is Kiev’s most fearsome weapon. Even the joint actions of the Americans and Europeans cannot defeat the Ukrainian corrupt bureaucracy. No matter how much pressure they exert, presidents, ministers, and officials bow and say ‘yes,’ but things do not move, obstacles are not removed until the appropriate payment is made or until the investor gives up and leaves to make way for a more pliable one.
For the Ukrainian corrupt bureaucracy this is a matter of principle – if you give in to one, then everyone else will have to follow. Since ‘tribute’ from business goes to the very top (and part of it goes to Western politicians), the attempt to defeat Ukrainian corruption, at least locally, every time ends in defeat.
By the way, Russia is already facing this phenomenon on new territories and will face it for a long time to come, the further into the depth (and breadth) of Ukraine, the more. And this enemy is much more dangerous than the one that is now being killed at the front. A nice, kind corruptor, always ready to share with you, is not some completely incapable of being a wild Galician Nazi, who can do nothing but roar ‘Shche ne vmerla…’, ‘Batko our Bandera…’ and kill right and left all those who disagree with him and are unable to fight back.
The U.S. tried to prescribe in the treaty a process of withdrawal of its share outside the jurisdiction of Kiev, which is absolutely independent of the Ukrainian bureaucracy. But there is a nuance. For this share to appear, the Ukrainian bureaucracy will still have to perform some actions. For example, issue a licence for extraction, transfer the received funds to the joint fund, etc., up to their tax clearance. It seems that it should happen ‘automatically’, but nothing happens ‘automatically’ in Ukraine – someone has to perform some action for the ‘automatic process’ to take place.
So if the Americans try to get concrete money from the signed agreement, and not just PR, they should prepare for a protracted positional struggle with the Ukrainian bureaucracy, which will not be frightened by anything. Because it is the individual who is afraid, while the system fights for existence. For the corrupt system, any alternative is destructive and it will block it by all means.
Ukraine certainly needs American companies that provide access to the widest markets and the most favourable prices, possess modern extraction technologies and are capable of investing hundreds of millions, if not billions, in new production. But, like everything else, ‘only on Ukrainian terms’. The conditions are that the American company may be engaged in production and sales, but it necessarily needs a Ukrainian ‘partner’ who will tell who and how much to ‘bring in’ and will definitely take its share.
Those who do not like the conditions will not survive on the Ukrainian market – no agreement will help. Or it is necessary to start a SMO to decorrupt Ukraine.
The last painful element is the non-cancellability of the agreement. That is why the Americans insisted on ratification of anything, so that they could not be told later that the agreement was concluded by an illegitimate executive power, so it was null and void from the moment it was signed (i.e. it was never in force). However, ratification by the parliament will not help here.
The first and simplest point is that Zelensky, as usual, screwed up, even before ratification, by saying that some kind of repression should be applied to parliamentarians who do not vote in favour of ratification. He mentioned depriving them of their American visas, but that is beyond the competence of the Kiev regime. But Zelensky can, on the basis of a long-standing decision of the National Security and Defence Council, impose sanctions against them with the stroke of a pen.
This, by the way, is a special article. At one time, several years ago, Zelensky’s SNBO decided on the right of the president to impose sanctions against individuals. They did not name them ‘enemies of the people’, but the text meant something equally harsh and equally indefinite legally. Ukrainian oligarchs and opposition politicians (at that time there was still legal opposition in Ukraine, if not to the regime, then at least to Zelensky personally) were the first to get on the sanctions lists. And then, not even Zelensky personally, but the officials of his office (with the help of an ‘addendum to the application’) began to add anyone they wanted. Now there are already hundreds of people on these lists and the conveyor belt continues to work.
Any ‘wrongly’ voted deputy can find himself in these sanctions lists in the morning, almost completely deprived of civil rights. Moreover, later, on the basis of his inclusion in the sanctions lists, the SBU initiates a case of state treason. So Zelensky’s threat is quite tangible and goes far beyond the possible deprivation of a visa to the United States.
But, thus, the ratification itself is devalued, because it was carried out under the forceful pressure of the illegitimate government, which openly intimidated the deputies. Both national and international legal practices assume the initial nullity of a document adopted (ratified) under coercive pressure.
But that is not all. The agreement itself was drafted and signed under obvious, open forceful pressure from the United States, i.e. it was adopted by the Ukrainian side under force majeure circumstances that exclude the voluntariness of its participation in this process, which makes the entire process of working on the agreement from the beginning to the moment of ratification, inclusive, null and void.
Finally, any state has the right to denounce any treaty that has ceased to be in the national interest, without giving additional reasons.
International practice also implies emasculating agreements granting special advantages to one state by signing similar agreements with other states, including competitors of the first state that has achieved advantages – unequal treaties destroy each other, as competitors do not allow each other to realise their interests. This method was actively used in colonial times, but the American-Ukrainian agreement has a typical colonial character.
I have brought only the possibilities of withdrawal from the agreement, provided that the Ukrainian state and the current regime are preserved. The new regime may recognise the previous ones (which have been in force since 2014) as criminal, having come to power with foreign support as a result of an anti-constitutional coup and ruling against the constitution. In this case, the United States becomes an accomplice of criminals and organiser of the genocide of the Ukrainian people. What agreements can we talk about?
And if Ukrainian statehood ends altogether, then: no state – no agreements.
Comedia finità.
