Billion‑Dollar Poker in Moscow: Peace Talks or Resource Grab?

Short answer: It’s both—and more complicated. Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner did go to Moscow to meet Vladimir Putin. Business ideas are in the room. But some claims about “no peace, no resources” and “more than half of Ukraine’s resources under occupation” are overstated, and the plan to reintegrate Russia into the world economy isn’t a declared U.S. policy.

Below, we unpack what’s verified, what’s murky, and what’s flat‑out wrong—and reveal the surprising pitches on the table.

The Meeting Is Real—and Unusual

• Verified: Steve Witkoff, acting as a special envoy for President Donald Trump, and Jared Kushner are in Moscow for talks with Putin. Multiple outlets confirmed the trip Tuesday. (AP: https://apnews.com/article/8bb7390e69ec970164c793f90da436a8)
• Why it matters: A real estate investor (Witkoff) and the president’s son‑in‑law (Kushner) fronting sensitive talks is unusual and has drawn scrutiny. (WSJ summary: https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/trump-envoys-to-meet-putin-to-push-u-s-peace-plan-for-ukraine-173ac10c)

Hook: In private contacts, a Kremlin emissary even dangled joint U.S.–Russia megaprojects—using frozen Russian assets, Arctic minerals, and, yes, talk of a joint Mars mission—as part of a broader peace discussion. (Pravda/WSJ summary: https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2025/11/29/8009576)

The Big Resource Deal with Kyiv—And the “Privileged Access” Clause

• Verified core: In late April/early May 2025, the U.S. and Ukraine signed the United States–Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund. It can back minerals, oil and gas, and related infrastructure. Governance is joint (three board members each). (U.S. Treasury: https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0126)
• Key detail: The White House says the U.S. gets a “first choice” (right of first refusal) to buy output from covered projects—effectively privileged access. (Fact sheet: https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/05/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-secures-agreement-to-establish-united-states-ukraine-reconstruction-investment-fund)
• Ukraine’s control: Kyiv insists it keeps ownership and decision‑making on where and what to extract. That’s consistent with the agreement’s joint governance. (Treasury release: https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0126)

Bottom line: The article’s framing that Washington gains a favored lane into Ukraine’s critical minerals—including rare earths—holds up. But the picture gets messy when you ask where those minerals actually are, and when they could be mined.

How Much Is Underground—and Where?

• The headline figure—“$14.8 trillion” in Ukrainian mineral wealth—comes from a Forbes Ukraine estimate (April 2023). It’s widely cited but hotly debated. Treat it as a rough, contested estimate, not settled fact. (Forbes UA: https://forbes.ua/money/viyna-za-resursi-forbes-otsiniv-vartist-vsikh-korisnikh-kopalin-ukraini-25042023-13255)
• “More than half under occupation”? Overstated. Best public estimates say:
  • About half of strategic mineral resources are in occupied areas, according to Ukrainian officials. (Interfax‑Ukraine/Reuters pickup: https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/1075481.html)
  • Roughly 40% of metals resources are under occupation. (Al Jazeera/think‑tank estimates: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/2/28/mapping-ukraines-rare-earth-and-critical-minerals)
  • Around half of rare‑earth reserves may be in occupied zones. (CBS citing ISW: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-trump-minerals-russia-war-rare-earths-deal)
  • Coal is the outlier: the vast majority sits in occupied territory. (DW: https://www.dw.com/en/russia-ukraine-war-natural-resources-grain/a-66639269)
• Correction: Saying “more than half of all resources” are occupied is too categorical. It varies by resource. “Around half” is a better generalization for strategic minerals.

Can Mining Only Start After Peace? Not Exactly

• Correction: There is no clause requiring a peace treaty before projects begin. Mining is already happening in safer parts of Ukraine, and the fund is being stood up now. What’s true: large‑scale development in contested or occupied zones is impossible until security improves. (Treasury implementation update: https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0236; Reuters sector overview: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-revamps-minerals-sector-eyes-billions-investment-us-deal-2025-05-27)

Think of it like renovating a house: you can redo the back rooms today, but you can’t start on the wing that’s still on fire.

The Russia Business Angle: Interest, Pitches—and Limits

• What’s on the table: Kremlin‑linked envoy Kirill Dmitriev has floated joint U.S.–Russia ventures—some financed by roughly $300 billion in frozen Russian central‑bank assets, plus Arctic minerals, even a joint Mars project—as part of broader talks. (Pravda/WSJ summary: https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2025/11/29/8009576)
• Trump’s signals: Trump has mused publicly about buying minerals “on Russian land,” showing interest—but that’s not the same as a formal U.S. policy. (Context on Russia’s rare‑earth ambitions: https://www.investing.com/news/commodities-news/factboxwhat-are-russias-rare-earth-metals-ambitions-3892910; business‑return chatter: https://www.tbsnews.net/world/russian-wealth-fund-sees-us-companies-returning-2025-1073656)
• Important constraint: U.S. government documents tied to the Ukraine fund bar Russian war financiers from benefiting. There is no official plan committing Washington to “reintegrate Russia” economically. That idea is better described as a Russian pitch—and a possibility Trump has flirted with—than adopted policy. (Treasury/White House documents above)

The Peace Plan: Leaning Moscow’s Way? Early Drafts Did—But It’s Not Done

• Verified nuance: Reporting indicates an initial 28‑point U.S. draft drew heavily on Russian inputs and included far‑reaching concessions (limits on Ukraine’s military, territorial compromises, curbs on NATO). That sparked backlash and revisions. Neither Kyiv nor Moscow has accepted a final plan; European allies are trying to rebalance it. (Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-peace-plan-ukraine-drew-russian-document-sources-say-2025-11-26)
• Correction: Saying the Kremlin “only” needs to accept Washington’s plan is wrong. Major gaps remain.

So—Peace or Profits?

Both pressures are real and intertwined. Peace would unlock access to contested deposits and make big projects viable. But parts of Ukraine’s resource sector are operating now, and the U.S.–Ukraine fund already gives Washington a privileged purchasing lane. Meanwhile, Moscow is testing whether business sweeteners—some eyebrow‑raising—can soften the edges of a deal.

Key Corrections and Takeaways

• True: Witkoff and Kushner met Putin in Moscow. (AP)
• True: The May 2025 U.S.–Ukraine fund gives the U.S. a “first choice” on resources from backed projects; Ukraine retains ownership/control. (Treasury, White House)
• Qualified: Ukraine’s “$14.8T” mineral valuation is an estimate with wide uncertainty. (Forbes UA)
• Qualified: “More than half” of resources under occupation is too broad; “around half” for strategic minerals is more accurate and varies by resource. (Interfax‑Ukraine, Al Jazeera, CBS, DW)
• False as stated: “No peace, no resources.” Mining continues in safer areas; no treaty is required to start projects, though security limits scale and location. (Treasury, Reuters)
• Interpretation, not policy: Re‑integrating Russia via megaprojects is a Russian pitch and a Trump flirtation, not formal U.S. policy. (Pravda/WSJ summary, TBS News)

What We Know vs. What We Don’t

What we know

• The Moscow trip happened; business cooperation was discussed alongside peace. (AP; Pravda/WSJ summary)
• The U.S.–Ukraine fund exists, covers minerals/hydrocarbons, and embeds a U.S. purchasing advantage. (Treasury; White House)
• Early peace drafts leaned toward Russian demands; pushback led to revisions. (Reuters)

What we don’t know

• The exact shape of any final peace terms—and whether Kyiv/Moscow will accept them.
• Whether the U.S. would green‑light any Russia‑linked projects, given sanctions, frozen assets, and political blowback.
• How fast mining can scale inside Ukraine amid ongoing security risks.

How We Verified This

We reviewed primary documents (U.S. Treasury releases and a White House fact sheet) and cross‑checked news reports from AP, Reuters, the Wall Street Journal (as summarized), and reputable outlets tracking Ukraine’s resource map. Where figures were contested (like the $14.8T valuation), we flag the uncertainty and link to the underlying estimate.

What to Watch Next

• Any published text of a revised peace proposal—and reactions from Kyiv and European allies. (Reuters link above)
• Implementation rules for the U.S.–Ukraine fund, especially project selection and the “first choice” clause in practice. (Treasury/White House)
• Signals on sanctions and frozen Russian assets—legal pathways (or roadblocks) to funding any cross‑border venture.

If you came for a clean answer—peace or profits—the truth is messier: negotiators are trying to braid the two. The real question is whether the business carrots on offer can survive the hard law of sanctions, the facts on the ground, and the politics in Kyiv, Moscow, and Washington.