The final version of the agreement, dated February 24 and seen by the FT, would establish a fund into which Ukraine would contribute 50 per cent of proceeds from the “future monetisation” of state-owned mineral resources, including oil and gas, and associated logistics. The fund would invest in projects in Ukraine.

(…)

However, the agreement omits any reference to US security guarantees which Kyiv had originally insisted on in return for agreeing to the deal. It also leaves crucial questions such as the size of the US stake in the fund and the terms of “joint ownership” deals to be hashed out in follow-up agreements.

(…)

Ukrainian officials added that the deal was just a “framework agreement” and that no revenues would change hands until the fund was in place, allowing them time to iron out any potential disagreements. Among the outstanding issues is to agree the jurisdiction of the agreement.

Mirror: https://archive.is/2025.02.25-183836/https://www.ft.com/content/1890d104-1395-4393-a71d-d299aed448e6

  • @iAvicenna
    link
    English
    05 hours ago

    I think there is still a difference if Russia loses all that power for nothing vs it gets what it wants (mostly at least). But my impression is also that it has gotten significantly weaker in this war and this was perhaps Europe’s and UKs (and US initially) aim, that weaken Russia using a remotely controlled nation…