On May 1, 2025, an agreement was signed between the USA and Ukraine regarding mineral resources, while the US administration approved arms sales to Kyiv worth 50 million dollars. These two events elicited a multifaceted and predictably negative reaction from Russian officials and state media. Below, Russia’s main positions on both issues, their connections, and the strategic objectives behind Russian rhetoric are analyzed.
The Mineral Resources Agreement: Content and Significance for Russia
The agreement signed on May 1, 2025, between the USA and Ukraine establishes a joint investment fund, to be financed by revenues from new licenses for projects involving critical materials, oil, and gas. According to the agreement, all resources on Ukrainian territory remain owned and controlled by Ukraine, but Ukraine and the USA will jointly manage the fund on a 50/50 basis, with neither party holding a casting vote.
It is important to note that the agreement contains a clear statement about the war against Russia, directly identifying Moscow as the aggressor in the conflict. This is a significant political aspect that, along with the economic provisions, has led to a strong reaction from Russian authorities.
Excerpt from the preamble of the mineral agreement below:
Russian Narratives Against the Mineral Agreement
The Kremlin and its representatives have shown great interest in trying to stop the agreement between Ukraine and the USA on mineral resources, as evidenced by several public statements and media campaigns.
Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova claimed that the USA exploited Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky in order to conclude the mineral resources agreement. On her Telegram channel, she expressed herself in very sharp terms: “With what disdain Zelensky’s handlers treat him. They don’t even consider it necessary to hide it. They bought him completely, exploited him, and now they wipe their dirty and bloody hands on him.“
According to analyses from the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), the Kremlin has a vested interest in preventing the agreement, as it commits the USA to long-term investments in Ukraine and its sovereignty. The Russian side actively promotes the narrative that the agreement does not benefit Ukraine, while simultaneously suggesting that Russia itself can offer the USA better terms.
Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council, warned that Zelensky’s approval of the agreement with the USA on mineral resources could lead to his overthrow, reflecting Russia’s interest in destabilizing Ukraine’s political landscape.
American Arms Sales to Ukraine: Scope and Context
At the same time as the mineral agreement was signed, President Donald Trump’s administration notified Congress of its intention to approve the export of defense products to Ukraine through direct commercial sales (DCS) worth 50 million dollars or more. This is the first authorization of arms deliveries to Kyiv following a temporary halt in US military support to Ukraine for a review.
It is noteworthy that the arms sale was approved in conjunction with the signing of the mineral agreement, which may indicate a connection between these decisions. Previously, Zelensky expressed Ukraine’s desire to purchase additional military support, including air defense systems, and to allocate significant funds – up to 30–50 billion dollars – for this.
Russian Reaction to the Arms Sale
Russian representatives and authorities have expressed a strongly negative stance on the USA’s decision to sell arms to Ukraine, which aligns with Moscow’s general position on the issue.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry has traditionally condemned such actions, claiming that arms deliveries to Ukraine undermine the possibility of a peaceful solution and draw NATO countries into the conflict. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned that all transports of Western weapons to Kyiv become legitimate targets for the Russian army, demonstrating Russia’s hardline stance.
President Vladimir Putin expressed concern that Western weapons delivered to Ukraine regularly end up on the international black market. This line of argument is also developed by Deputy Foreign Minister Andrey Rudenko, who argues that the sale of delivered weapons on the black market inevitably leads to increased crime and terrorism, as well as a heightened risk of escalation in existing conflicts and the emergence of new armed confrontations worldwide.
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov suggested that Ukraine’s existing weapons stockpiles are sufficient to continue fighting for many months even if deliveries were to cease, adding ironically: “If they don’t steal them.” This statement reflects the Russian narrative of corruption in Ukraine and misuse of Western support.
Strategy and Goals of Russian Rhetoric
Firstly, the Kremlin considers the agreement between Ukraine and the USA harmful to Russia’s military and geopolitical goals, as it strengthens the economic and political ties between Washington and Kyiv. According to ISW, any agreement that ties the USA to an independent and sovereign Ukraine contradicts Russia’s long-term goals of isolating and controlling Ukraine.
Secondly, the Russian side actively seeks to portray that Zelensky is “selling out” Ukrainian resources and sovereignty in exchange for military support. This narrative is directed both at the Russian domestic audience and the international community, aiming to undermine the legitimacy of Ukraine’s leadership and its decisions.
Thirdly, by emphasizing that Western weapons end up on the black market, Russia attempts to discredit military support to Ukraine and create the impression that such support poses a threat to global security. This argument is regularly used by Russian representatives to justify their opposition to Western arms deliveries.
Conclusion: Perspectives and Consequences
Russia’s reaction to the agreement between Ukraine and the USA on mineral resources and the decision on arms sales demonstrates Moscow’s deep concern over the strengthening of ties between the USA and Ukraine. The Kremlin sees these steps as obstacles to its goals towards Ukraine and actively works to discredit them.
Statements from Russian representatives and state media reflect a consistent strategy to undermine the legitimacy of Ukraine’s decisions, justify their own stance in the conflict, and influence international opinion. Despite these efforts, the signing of the mineral agreement and resumed American arms deliveries signal continued support for Kyiv from Washington, potentially limiting Russia’s ability to achieve its geopolitical goals in the region.
The Kremlin is likely to continue using various informational and diplomatic tools to counter the rapprochement between the USA and Ukraine, as this is seen as a key area of focus in Russian foreign policy in the ongoing conflict.