u.s.-canada trade war, one of the big winners would be china, maybe russia. we are out of time. thank you very much and thank you to our panelists. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2025] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> ukrainian president volodymyr zelenskyy is that the white house now. earlier he was on capitol hill. senator chris coons posted this. just finished an encouraging meeting in washington with president volodymyr zelenskyy. coming up, more on president trump's meetings with volodymyr zelenskyy. therein talks over eight mineral sharing deal. we plan to show you several public appearances including an oval office meeting and a joint press conference.

they will speak to the press live at 1:00 and the ukrainian president will talk about securing peace three years after the russian invasion of his country. that will be hosted by the hudson institute at 4:00. you can watch these events live on c-span, c-span.org or c-span now. continues. host: joining us is gracelin baskaran at the center for strategic and international studies, program director that looks at critical minerals security to talk about the proposed u.s.-ukraine minerals deal. president zelensky will be in washington today. he will arrive at the white house in a couple of hours and there will be negotiations that have been behind hold forth between president trump and mr. zelensky. big picture, what minerals are in the country of ukraine and what is their status? guest: ukraine has a basket of minerals.

it occupies 4% of the world's land but it is estimated to have about 5% of the world's minerals. we have coal and uranium on the energy side and rare earth which they will probably talk about earlier which we use for different technology, advanced semiconductors, titanium, graphite, a basket of resources. host: aluminum as well. what is their status? the country has been in war with three years for -- in war for three years with russia. are these minerals able to be extracted now? guest: it is a lot of untapped potential. the majority of minerals in ukraine were done so 30 to 60 years ago about the soviet union. there are a couple of challenges. we need to know what is there. we need to know whether the private sector wants to mine it.

here in the u.s., we have minerals but the deposit may not be big enough, it is too deep so they end up not actually getting extracted. we don't have a lot of data on i s it economically viable to mine them. two, how quickly can we do them? on average it takes 18 years to build a mine. that is a long time. so we have to map and add the time it takes to develop the mine. host: does ukraine have the infrastructure to mine these minerals from their country? guest: mining is incredibly infrastructure intensive. 60% of the world's electricity supply is used by the mining industry. we know that most of that energy infrastructure has been wiped out during the course of the war. so there is a lot of rebuilding from the energy, roads, the part

that has to be rebuilt along the side of geological mapping before we get to a point of production. host: when you look at a map of ukraine and this is put together by reuters, they show the different minerals across the country of ukraine. here is titanium, graphite over here, rare earth minerals here, lithium, uranium, others across the country. iron, etc. why is the u.s. interested in these minerals? guest: we will start with rare earth because we have seen rare earth feature very prominently in the conversation about ukraine but also greenland, it has been a broader concern. we are really stressed out by china's dominance in rare earth. they processed 90% of the worlds rare earth and they are very willing to weaponized them. we first saw this in 2010. there was a dispute with japan about a fishing trawler and time

cut japan off. rare earths are not just a clean energy story. it is really a different story. they are in warships, fighter jets, missiles, tanks, lasers, pretty much the backbone that keeps our country safe is a rare earth story. what we started doing five years ago in the u.s. through the defense production act as we have spent $300 million to build that processing capability here at home in the u.s., texas and california, which is fantastic. except we only have 1.3% of the worlds were -- of the world's rare earth. we are looking to strategically source rare earth from other places that can come back to the u.s., be processed and manufactured into these various technologies. we have seen the development finance corporation of the government financing agency is looking at financing a project in brazil. then you add the agreement story

and ukraine and you really see rare eartha are a top focus and other commodities remain very important. host: define rare earths. guest: they are a group of 17 minerals. this proscenium, scandium, they are hard to say and spell. some of them are really important. the other thing about rare earths, they are a misnomer because they are not actually rare. they are actually everywhere. they are often found in small quantities and are expensive to extract and process which is why there are so few processing facilities globally. the trick is where can we find them in as large quantities as possible. they are a large group of minerals. host: is that in ukraine? is there a large quantity? guest: we have to map it. host: what does that entail? because it has not been done in

30 years. guest: it is very old mapping. the director of the ukrainian geological survey, the former director, has said there is no modern mapping of rare earths. from the initial deal that was being discussed whereby ukraine was asked to repay $500 billion to the united states through minimal revenue for military aid that was paid, president zelensky said i am not on board with that because there was not $500 billion of aid that we received. we note that figure to be closer to 128 billion dollars. from that point to where we are now ukraine has gotten a much better deal. now if there is no repayment, what zelenskyy will get with time from the world and not just the u.s. is a mapping. the mapping comes before the investment. host: tell us about the deal. when you look at what we know so far, how does ukraine benefit from this and how does the u.s.

benefit? guest: ukraine gets one really big thing. the deal puts forward a fund, a reconstruction fund in a sense. it would take 50% of all future mineral revenue. oil and gas too. and put it into this fund and this fund could be used to turn around and invest in ukraine. the way it also becomes an economic development tool for some of this infrastructure that we need to rebuild. what the deal does not include is a does not include the repayment that was originally discussed. it also does not include any security guarantees which president zelenskyy really wanted and president trump said that is what europe's job is for. we are not here for that. will this affect mineral investment? that is a real question. president macron said there is almost in implicit security that comes with this cooperation. it is to be determined whether the private sector think that is enough. here is why.

land is very easy to appropriate in that region as we have seen over the last 11 years. in the last few days blue boy -- president putin has said i want a minerals deal too. not just russia but russia-occupied land which means he is willing to negotiate with minerals that are not really on his own land. expropriation globally, history has told us, we conquer where minerals are. let me go stays in africa -- let me go to king leopold stays in africa. -- king leopold's days in africa. that is another invasion or a further look, expansion of an occupation could potentially take some of these assets. prior to the war, there were two lithium as its that companies were looking to develop.

there is no guarantee that that will not happen again. host: let's get to calls. rome in california, independent. your questions or comments about this potential minerals deal. caller: thank you for letting me speak. this whole program that is being advocated by the president and his followers is basically an experiment or a demonstration of modern-day colonialism. you can trace back in history how the lady who was speaking before was talking about africa and you can see how africa is now regarding what took place in earlier colonialism. i am not saying it's wrong. basically the chinese owned a lot of american ports. for countries to go into different areas, not necessarily invade them with their military but invade them with their

capitalistic enterprises to grab minerals or utilize facilities to generate money for their own particular beliefs, is a very complicated and difficult thing. more than likely it will eventually be a nightmare. patients have demonstrated it throughout time in essence. the russian situation in ukraine , who really knows the bottom line answer? i surely don't. i have spoken to ukrainians. i have spoken to russians. presently -- surprisingly enough ukrainian individual has no problems with it since the majority of people in that particular area that russia now occupies is russian speaking, which is an

interesting thought. ukraine over the years has gone through tremendous problems as any country that does not have a sea as a boundary. host: we will have our guest respond. thank you. guest: thanks for the question. you are absolutely right that there is an easy trap that has been happening for centuries on colonialism. president zelenskyy has gone to great length to avoid that and here's what i mean. in the initial deal there was conversation about the u.s. owning the land or owning mineral rights of ukraine. that is not the case anymore. we see this recently in 2007 after the conflict in the democratic republic of congo. china negotiated a deal whereby they gave the congo $3 billion of infrastructure and in exchange they got access to $93 billion of copper and cobalt. today 15 of the 19 biggest mines

are owned by chinese companies. a couple years ago they realized they got the short end of the stick and they declared that they would go back and review the deal. there are a lot of lessons learned from that in terms of trying to avoid ownership, where another country gets to make decisions and get excessively favorable terms to the detriment of their own development. we have seen just this last week the drc has said that he would like a minerals deal because there is the growing war with rwanda. president trump is said to be thinking about it in the new york times. president zelenskyy has been strategic to avoid the pitfalls of having sovereign autonomy, being forced to take a bad deal and where we have landed with this deal is more of a cooperation agreement. it is more of a government to government cooperation agreement than an ownership deal.

host: how dependent is this on private investment? guest: 100% dependent on private investment because the u.s. government unlike saudi arabia or china or russia does not have a state owned mining company. if we want the 50% of revenue to go into this fund, the revenue is not generated by u.s. government money. it is ultimately determined by private sector mining output and revenue coming from that which is why the best thing the government can do with this piece of paper to keep it from being just a piece of paper is to support infrastructure development, to support mapping, to support the things that make the private sector willing to go in and take that risk. host: what companies, u.s. companies would go in? what are some names that people will recognize? guest: the private sector has been fairly quiet in this conversation so far for a couple of reasons. on the american side part of the challenge is we don't have a lot

of big american mining companies. if you look at the majors, eight of the 10 or nine of the 10 are foreign, british, australian, canadian, chinese or saudi arabian. we only have a couple of american mining companies and the majors are only covering gold. we do rely on companies in allied nations. the second thing is companies are hesitant given volatility to make a statement. mining companies are also mysteriously quiet on terrorists. they are staying quiet right now to see how this unfolds. host: we will go to mike in michigan, democratic. caller: good morning. a couple of years ago i recall seeing an article that there is a vast store of these rare earth minerals on the seabed between california and hawaii. crittenden something or another.

i cannot remember the name of the area. possibly as many as one dozen nations have state claims to these rare earth minerals that could actually be vacuumed up. even though it is so deep, we have the capability of drilling for oil through a couple of miles of water before we hit the basin. i was just wondering what you know about this store of rare earth minerals sitting there on the seabed. thank you. guest: the clippard in zone. deep-sea mining has a significant amount of minerals. minerals that we look at are things like nickel, cobalt, these tend to sit in large

quantity. the u.s. is one of the only major companies that have not ratified the u.n. convention on deep-sea mining. we have stayed very quiet. some of the challenges that exist are that there could be we don't know the environmental impact of deep-sea mining. could it devastate the underwaters? we don't know. norway is actually leading the way in deep-sea mining alongside japan. we will learn from norway and japan on the environmental side of things. we can take lessons and apply them here. while deep-sea mining is important, we will not meet all of our needs from the seas which makes terrestrial land-based mining very important. host: we will go to florida, republican caller. good morning. caller: good morning. there are a couple of key points that are mentioned in regard to minerals.

i believe that is what the russian leader putin has been trying to obtain this whole time but he has done that in a war tactic like it later mentality. -- like hitler mentality. israel is a nation that the u.s. response to. but the jews are a ukrainian nation spread around the world. if the united states backs up israel and ukraine being an israel-related nation, wouldn't it be in the best interest for the united states to back up ukraine with military status and considering putin is an anti-biblical figure as well as many other nations that are

muslim-related -- host: some thoughts on that? guest: i think president trump's foreign policy is far more transactional than ideological. in his first 30 days he is looking at annexing resources in canada, greenland, ukraine and it has been a minerals story. we see a far more transactional foreign policy in this administration. host: illinois, independent. your comment or question on this potential deal between the u.s. and ukraine on minerals. go ahead. caller in illinois, you are next. caller: my question is simple. would putin allow this deal to go through as he is looking for a victory rather than piece? will this deal really secure our investments in ukraine? guest: that's a great question.

through this negotiation putin has not come out against it. he has tried to negotiate his own deal. people have asked why is he trying to negotiate his own critical minerals and facilitate a deal. putin has been on the global pariah list for several years and is looking to leverage mineral resources as a way to forage and get off of sanctions, get back on the geopolitical stage and minerals are speaking very loudly not only to the u.s. but a number of other governments seeking to bolster their supply. it will be interesting to see, someone said to me yesterday, a minerals deal is ending the war. what we have seen this president trump has not said that putin must give back the region. there must be a big compromise in that way in terms of he gets certain things and president zelenskyy get certain things but

minerals will be on both sides of that. host: doris is in georgia, independent. caller: good morning. my question is how many of you are aware that that strip of land in ukraine is part of the original garden of eden? it was placed there at the very beginning of creation. host: your point is what? caller: my point is they are tearing up the garden of eden just to get to those minerals. those are regardless -- those are godless men with no conscious and don't care the damage they do. where do you think they will go from here? host: walter, nevada, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well. caller: we keep hearing from donald trump about how ukraine

has to give minerals, money to europe, to the united states. what does russia have to give to the destruction of the children, the families, the infrastructure and the lives they took in ukraine for an unprovoked attack on a democracy? guest: this agreement is focusing on minerals. like i said earlier, it is a transactional environment and ultimately this agreement is a minerals investment kind of agreement. it does not go beyond that. host: keith in new york, republican. caller: hi. i called on the independent line. host: go ahead. caller: i wanted to make a comment. it appears that this whole minerals deal is another dog and pony show like trump to appease his supporters and they will praise him up and down.

it appears there is nothing to the subtle. it is to make trump look good and he will stand ukrainians in the back. these callers who keep calling with this religious context everything, this is why everything is going south. host: i will jump in and have our guest respond to there is nothing to this. guest: this is a piece of paper that is a cooperation agreement. as he aptly said, whether investment comes in, it is to be determined by the private sector. there are all kinds of challenges. energy infrastructure has been wiped out. we have mapping. we have a security risk. whether the private sector decides if it is commercially viable is entirely a market dynamic. host: mary in las vegas, democratic. hi. caller: another big lie by donald trump is that we gave ukraine over $350 billion. it was more like $120 billion.

he likes to inflate numbers to get people riled up. we have already agreed to help ukraine when they gave up their nuclear weapons. we are not holding to that agreement. why would we hold to any agreement with donald trump? he is citing in the u.n. with putin, north korea. what does that tell you? the alignment is changing in the united states. this should be scaring people. i don't know why it isn't. he talks fast and loose with numbers but i agree with the last caller. i think he will stab ukraine in the back. if somebody came after the united states, which state would you be willing to give up? host: your final thoughts? guest: this is why the implicit security guarantee is the

explicit security guarantee that is the concern for me is that president trump is here for four years but a mining investment could be another 40 to 80 years. this is so long-term that changes, even if putin and president trump are on the same page, it does not mean it will be the development time of a mine. there are four more presidential cycles before you have a producing asset. that is a long time for something to change. this is a long time that a -- an explicit guarantee could be better. host: gracelin baskaran is the program director on critical minerals security at the center for strategic and international studies. thank you very much for the