The promise of a massive $12 trillion economic windfall for America from investing in Russia has sparked intense debate, especially as talks continue over ending the war in Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently revealed, based on intelligence reports, that Russia has proposed deals worth around $12 trillion to the United States in exchange for relief from Western sanctions. Some insiders even suggest that parts of this package may already be agreed upon behind closed doors.
This figure—$12 trillion—is enormous. For context, it is roughly four times the size of Russia’s entire economy and more than half the annual GDP of the United States. The proposals reportedly come from high-level Kremlin discussions, often referred to as the “Dmitriev package,” and focus on deep economic cooperation between Moscow and Washington.
At the heart of Russia’s pitch is a potential return to using the U.S. dollar for trade settlements. This would mark a major reversal for the Kremlin, which has spent years trying to reduce its dependence on the dollar due to sanctions imposed after the invasion of Ukraine. A Bloomberg report on an internal Russian memo describes seven key areas where interests could align, including joint investments in fossil fuels, natural gas, offshore oil projects, and critical raw materials like rare earth metals. These sectors would offer opportunities for American companies to gain access to Russia’s vast resources, potentially through preferential deals, market entry, or compensation for assets seized earlier.
The backdrop to these business talks is the ongoing, parallel diplomatic efforts to end the Ukraine conflict. American-led negotiations have produced many ideas but no breakthroughs on core issues like territorial control or security guarantees for Ukraine. While those discussions stall, separate channels between the Kremlin and the White House have explored economic incentives. Russia appears to be using these lucrative offers to encourage the Trump administration to push for a quick peace deal—possibly by June, according to recent deadlines mentioned—and to ease sanctions that have isolated Moscow financially.
European leaders and Ukrainian officials express growing alarm. They worry that President Donald Trump might pressure Ukraine into major concessions, such as giving up territory or accepting limits on its future security, in order to unlock these economic rewards. Zelensky has publicly warned that such bilateral U.S.-Russia arrangements could sideline Ukraine and reshape the region’s future without Kyiv’s input.
But is this $12 trillion “bonanza” realistic? Skeptics point out several hurdles. First, the number itself seems inflated or speculative—representing potential long-term deals rather than guaranteed cash flows. Russia’s economy faces strains from the war, sanctions, and reliance on China for trade, making it hard to deliver on such a scale quickly. Second, any major sanctions relief would require coordination with allies, especially in Europe, who have been firm on punishing Russia for its actions in Ukraine. Third, geopolitical risks remain high: investing heavily in Russia could expose U.S. companies to political instability, asset seizures, or renewed tensions.
Proponents of closer U.S.-Russia ties argue that collaboration on energy and minerals could benefit American businesses, lower global prices in some sectors, and even stabilize parts of the world economy. A return to dollar-based trade might strengthen the U.S. currency’s global role and weaken efforts by groups like BRICS to reduce dollar dominance.
In the end, while the Kremlin is dangling big promises to appeal to business-minded priorities in Washington, turning these ideas into reality would demand major compromises on the battlefield and in international relations. Whether this leads to a true economic partnership or remains mostly rhetoric depends on how peace talks evolve—and whether the U.S. is willing to trade security concerns for potential profits. For now, the $12 trillion figure serves more as a bargaining chip than a sure thing.
