By giving American companies a preferential treatment in Ukraine, the proposed mineral agreement is in danger of contradicting EU rules on competition and the single market, which provide equal and fair access.
The agreement on the minerals that kyiv and Washington are currently negotiating will be examined closely in Brussels to determine their compatibility with the Ukraine membership candidacy, said the European Commission, since the latest version of the text revives the fears that the country’s ambitions can derive to join the block.
The adhesion process requires that candidate countries gradually align with EU legislation, including the fundamental principles of loyal competition and non -discrimination.
“We have been transmitted that this agreement should be analyzed from the perspective of the relations between Ukraine and the EU and, in particular, in terms of adhesion negotiations,” said Paula Pinho, the main spokeswoman for the committee during a press conference.
Paula Pinho warned that any conclusion is “pure speculation” since the agreement is still being discussed among Ukrainian and American officials. The European Commission is willing to provide “legal assistance” to kyiv if requested.
“We cannot do any evaluation unless there is a specific agreement, with black and white letters, which allows us to evaluate the impact of the different political angles that may arise,” said the spokesman.
The comment comes a day after Bloomberg and Financial Times revealed new details about the latest version of the White House Agreement, which includes comprehensive terms that would allow the United States to obtain unprecedented control over Ukraine’s natural resources through a joint investment fund.
According to the project, the Board of Directors of the Fund would consist of five members: three nominees by the United States and two designated by Ukraine. In practice, this would give Washington an effective veto power on fundamental decisions regarding the new natural infrastructure and resources projects. Existing projects seem to be out of control.
The roads, railroads, ports, mines, oil, gas and the extraction of critical minerals would be covered by the new structure.
It would be required that Ukraine present all new projects in the background for analysis “as soon as possible,” according to Bloomberg. If the project was rejected, Ukraine would be prevented from offering it to other parts with “materially better” conditions.
In addition, the United States would have the right to harvest all funds of the fund and an annual performance of 4% until the military and financial aid that was supplied to Ukraine was completely recovered. The Kiel Institute for the World Economy Calculate that American support amounts to 114 billion euros since the beginning of the great large -scale invasion of Russia.
The “revenge” model has been fundamental for the motivation of Donald Trump to sign the agreement, which increases accusations of exploitation and neo -colonialism.
“Incompatibility”
Although Ukrainian employees could dilute the first proposals that the United States presented in February, until they obtained a text considered acceptable, the latest version seems to bring back the draconian terms that shocked Ukraine and its allies, and fed fear that the agreement can endanger the country’s aspirations to become a member of the EU.
By providing US companies with a “first dismissal of the first opening, the agreement is in” contradiction “directly with the rules of competition and the single market of the block, which provide fair and egalitarian access to all economic agents, regardless of nationality, says Svitlana Taran, political analyst of the European Policy Center (EPC) ,,,,,
“There must be open competition for all investors in projects,” Taran told Euronews. “In public tenders, EU companies and US companies should participate and compete on equal terms,” he added. “I see that there is a conflict of interest.”
Taran believes that Ukraine will continue the negotiations until the agreement becomes “acceptable” and the concerns about adhesion to the decrease in EUS, even if the weight that these concerns will have in the considerations of the White House is not clear.
ADVERTISING“The agreed provisions in previous versions were balanced with Ukrainian interests,” said the analyst. “Now they are again unbalanced in favor of the United States.”
The lack of security guarantees has been another point of discord in negotiations. The Trump administration filed the agreement on minerals as a kind of economic deterrence against future Russian aggressions. However, the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, warned that Vladimir Putin would prioritize his expansionist agenda over US interests.
Speaking on Thursday after a meeting of the “interested coalition” in Paris, Zelenskyy complained that the terms of the agreement were “constantly” to change, but promised that his team would continue to be “constructive” in the negotiations to avoid antagonisms that could lead to a new suspension of military assistance and share information.
“I thought we had already woken up that there would be an agreement as a fighter. But now, as far as I know, the Ukrainian and American teams are working on this agreement, because the United States is changing the rules and proposes (signature) the agreement immediately, a complete agreement,” Zelenskyy told journalists.
ADVERTISING“But I would not like the United States to implement that Ukraine is against the agreement in general. We have constantly given positive signs: we support cooperation with the United States. We do not want to send any signal to encourage the United States to suspend assistance to Ukraine or not share information. It is crucial for us.”
