The Kremlin promises Trump “the Greatest Deal in History” in exchange for lifting sanctions. Announced value: $12 trillion (six times Russia’s GDP). The Economist says it doesn’t add up.
After Donald Trump returned to the White House in early 2025, two parallel negotiation tracks began unfolding between Russia and the United States. The first is public. It concerns the possible end of the Russia–Ukraine war. Despite numerous initiatives, no agreement has yet been reached: Moscow and Kyiv remain irreconcilable, particularly on the issue of territory.
The second process is more discreet. Representatives of the Kremlin and the White House are discussing major economic projects that could form the basis of a “new economic reset.” On February 7, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, citing intelligence data, stated that Russia had offered the United States deals worth up to $12 trillion in exchange for easing sanctions.
According to The Economist, ahead of a meeting between Vladimir Putin and Trump in Anchorage in August 2025, a document was reportedly prepared for Russia’s Security Council outlining how to present the American president with “the greatest deal.” The proposal was discussed by Putin’s envoy Kirill Dmitriev and Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff, who are said to have met at least nine times in 2025. Individuals close to the Trump family allegedly considered potential participation in Russian energy assets.
Moscow is offering American companies the opportunity to fill the niches left vacant by Europeans after 2022. Before the war, the largest foreign investors in Russia were EU countries; the Kremlin now suggests that U.S. companies take their place. The proposed projects include the development of Arctic oil and gas fields, rare earth mining, construction of a nuclear-powered data center, infrastructure initiatives, including a tunnel under the Bering Strait, and the return of Exxon Mobil’s assets worth about $5 billion, seized in 2022.
The key energy project is Vostok Oil, led by Rosneft. It is estimated to cost around $160 billion and involves building 15 industrial settlements, three airports, and roughly 3,500 kilometers of power lines. Rosneft claims that by the 2030s production could reach 2 million barrels per day—about 2% of current global output.
Another component of the “package” concerns rare earth elements. Russia’s Far North is believed to contain around 29 million tons of such resources. Moscow aims to increase its share of global production from the current 1.3% to 10% by 2030 through the development of the Angara-Yenisei industrial cluster, valued at approximately $9 billion.
However, the overall figure of $12 trillion appears heavily inflated. The Economist argues that even if all the announced projects were implemented, the real economic gains for the United States would be far more modest.
In 2021, European Union exports to Russia slightly exceeded $100 billion. The total value of Western companies’ assets abandoned in Russia after 2022 is estimated at around $60 billion. Arctic oil development would only be viable at oil prices near $100 per barrel, alongside massive investment and at least a decade of political stability. Many reserve estimates are still based on Soviet-era geological data, and overlapping licenses among Russian state entities create additional legal and political risks.
The sanctions regime includes roughly 23,000 restrictive measures. Lifting them would require not only approval from the U.S. administration but also from Congress and the European Union. Even in the case of partial easing, foreign companies would face political risks, an opaque judicial system, and competition from Chinese and Turkish firms that have already captured many market segments. About 30% of Russia’s foreign trade is now conducted in yuan, while parallel import mechanisms have reduced incentives for Western brands to return officially.
Moscow’s presumed strategy is to convince Trump of the scale of economic benefits from a “grand bargain” in order to influence his position in negotiations over Ukraine. Yet, as The Economist notes, the real economic potential of these projects falls far short of the sums being advertised. Even if a favorable political decision were made, it is unlikely that major American corporations would commit to large-scale investments without guarantees of long-term stability and predictability.
