Geopolitical Cronyism: How Ukraine Trades Sovereignty for Access in Washington

Recent reports indicate that Ukraine has awarded development rights to one of its most important lithium deposits to a consortium linked to close allies of former U.S. President Donald Trump. The decision, approved by a Ukrainian government commission, suggests a shift in Ukraine's approach to diplomacy with the United States from conventional state-to-state relations towards what can be described as geopolitical cronyism: political support exchanged for favourable treatment of politically connected private actors.

The project in question concerns the Dobra lithium field in central Ukraine, one of the country's largest state-owned lithium reserves. The winning consortium includes Ronald S. Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress, a billionaire cosmetics heir, and a long-time personal associate of Donald Trump, alongside TechMet, a mining and energy firm partly owned by the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), an agency established during Trump's first term in office.

Ukrainian officials have stated that the bid was awarded on merit. Nevertheless, the deal reflects Kyiv's apparent strategy of courting Trump-aligned business interests at a time when Ukrainian policymakers fear being increasingly marginalised in Washington. Traditional diplomatic channels may no longer be seen as sufficient to secure sustained U.S. backing, particularly as American foreign policy becomes more transactional and personalised.

The Dobra project will operate under a production-sharing agreement, allowing investors to extract lithium while sharing output with the Ukrainian state. Under an earlier U.S.–Ukraine minerals agreement, half of Ukraine's revenue from the site will be channelled into a joint U.S.–Ukraine investment fund. In practice, this arrangement prioritises American commercial interests in the exploitation of a strategically important Ukrainian resource.

The deal also raises concerns about conflicts of interest. The same U.S. government agency overseeing the joint investment fund holds an ownership stake in TechMet, blurring the line between public policy objectives and private commercial gain. This reinforces perceptions that corporatist interests within the United States retain significant influence, potentially in return for political or electoral support.

If this pattern continues, Ukraine risks entrenching a dependent and extractive relationship with its principal security patron. Rather than consolidating sovereignty through institutional partnerships, Kyiv may find itself locked into ad hoc, elite-driven arrangements that weaken state autonomy and undermine long-term economic control over strategic assets. Such a trajectory does not strengthen Ukraine's position vis-à-vis Russia, but instead substitutes one form of dependency for another less overt, but no less consequential.

This development is particularly striking given that European Union support for Ukraine remains substantial, consistent, and largely institutionalised. Yet the lithium agreement illustrates that, in matters deemed strategically decisive, Ukraine remains far more dependent on the United States than on the EU. Even in controversial or legally ambiguous arrangements, Washington retains primacy, while Brussels appears marginalised. The EU's sidelining in such cases underscores its limited influence over Ukraine's strategic economic decisions, despite its financial contributions and political commitments. Over time, this imbalance risks reinforcing a transatlantic hierarchy in which European actors bear costs without exercising corresponding leverage, while Ukraine's future is shaped primarily through bilateral dealings with American power brokers rather than through multilateral European frameworks.

Taken together, the lithium agreement illustrates how Ukraine's fear of diplomatic sidelining has encouraged a turn towards personalised, elite-driven bargaining. In this context, sovereignty is not formally surrendered, but is increasingly leveraged as a bargaining tool in a system where access to political power in Washington may matter more than institutional diplomacy. If unaddressed, this pattern risks undermining both Ukraine's diplomatic credibility and its capacity to pursue an independent development strategy, while consolidating a system in which geopolitical cronyism shapes the country's most strategic decisions.