A fresh minerals partnership between the United States and Ukraine may seem, at first glance, like a strictly regional affair—centred on post-war reconstruction, economic revival, and geopolitical strategy. But the ripple effects of this deal are bound to stretch far beyond Eastern Europe, and one of the regions likely to feel its impact most keenly is Africa.
Signed amid political tension and reduced military aid to Kyiv, the deal will see Washington invest in Ukraine’s rare earths and mineral deposits—resources that have long been central to Africa’s economic relevance on the global stage. From cobalt in the Democratic Republic of Congo to lithium in Zimbabwe and manganese in South Africa, Africa is home to some of the world’s most valuable and sought-after natural resources. These minerals power electric vehicles, smartphones, wind turbines, and defence systems—the very industries the US and its allies are keen to secure supply chains for.
So what happens when another country, one with deep Western ties and strategic importance, steps up as a new supplier of these same resources?
To begin with, Ukraine offers a compelling alternative for the West. With about five percent of the world’s known mineral and rare earth reserves, and massive untapped deposits of lithium, graphite, and titanium, Kyiv is now positioning itself as a competitive player in the global resource economy. The newly signed deal includes a joint Reconstruction Investment Fund, shared equally between the US and Ukraine, and gives Washington first rights to purchase these valuable resources.
For African nations, this shift could represent a threat to their already fragile hold on international mineral markets. If global investors begin to view Ukraine as a more stable, politically aligned, or logistically efficient source, Africa could find itself sidelined. This is particularly worrying for economies that are heavily reliant on raw mineral exports for revenue, jobs, and foreign currency.
However, there’s another side to the story—one that presents potential opportunities for African countries if they choose to adapt strategically. The Ukraine deal has set a new bar for what mineral-rich countries can demand in terms of control, transparency, and profit-sharing. Kyiv has secured equal representation on the fund’s board, retained full control over its subsoil rights, and committed to reinvesting profits locally for the first ten years. This could inspire African governments, civil societies, and advocacy groups to push for similar terms in future agreements—especially as the world’s hunger for these minerals continues to grow.
Moreover, as the West diversifies its mineral sources to reduce dependence on China and Russia, there remains a strong incentive to maintain African supply routes as part of the wider security and energy transition strategy. This could empower Africa to negotiate better deals—particularly if countries work collectively through platforms like the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA).
Still, the risks of marginalisation, exploitation, or being caught in geopolitical crossfires cannot be ignored. Some African nations have leaned heavily on Russian or Chinese partnerships for mining operations and infrastructure financing. As the US strengthens its economic ties with Ukraine in what many see as a strategic counter to Moscow, African countries may be forced to rethink their alignments and weigh the long-term benefits of diversification.
In the end, the US-Ukraine minerals deal is more than a bilateral economic agreement—it’s a glimpse into how global power dynamics around natural resources are shifting. For Africa, it’s both a cautionary tale and a wake-up call: the world is moving fast, and those who own the earth’s riches must decide not just how to extract them, but how to use them to build a fairer, more secure future.
