As Ukraine approaches the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has made his stance clear. He will not bow to US demands for a $500 billion mineral deal. He views this deal as an unfair price for American military aid.
Zelenskyy held a press conference just hours after Russia’s largest drone attack on Ukraine. He reinforced his stance on peace negotiations. He also addressed financial obligations and emphasized his nation’s sovereignty.
Zelenskyy says US $100 Billion Aid was a grant
Zelenskyy made a striking point. He rejected the notion that Ukraine owes the US repayment for military assistance. He stated that the $100 billion in aid approved by both US political parties was given as a grant. It is not a loan that must be repaid by future Ukrainian generations.
The Ukrainian leader refuses to sign a long-term repayment deal. This signals his unwillingness to mortgage his country’s future, especially under terms he considers exploitative.
Additionally, Zelenskyy criticized the proposed financial terms. These terms reportedly include a 100% interest rate. This means Ukraine would need to pay back $2 for every $1 received in future military aid.
He pointed out that such conditions were not imposed on allies like Israel, the UAE, or Saudi Arabia. This raises questions about fairness in US foreign policy.
Peace deal without Ukraine is not legitimate
Despite increasing US and Russian diplomatic activity, Zelenskyy warned that a peace deal between Washington and Moscow without Ukraine’s direct involvement would not be legitimate. Such an agreement would not be enforceable. He emphasized that any agreement must include strong security guarantees. These guarantees are necessary to prevent future Russian aggression. The US has not yet committed to this.
His comments come as US President Donald Trump and his team expressed confidence that they could secure a peace deal “as early as this week.”
A Trump envoy, Steve Witkoff, even suggested that part of Washington’s motivation is to allow American companies to resume business in Russia once sanctions are lifted. This economic angle adds another layer to the geopolitical calculations surrounding the conflict.
Election is not possible
Zelenskyy also addressed concerns about his legitimacy as Ukraine’s leader, dismissing claims that he should hold elections during wartime. He pointed out the impossibility of safely organizing an election while frontline cities like Sumy and Pokrovsk face constant bombardment. He argued that accusations of illegitimacy were part of a Russian disinformation campaign.
Zelenskyy took a defiant but humorous approach to Trump’s description of him as a “dictator” for not holding elections. He stated, “Why should I be offended? A dictator would be offended by being called a dictator.” He reminded critics that he won the 2019 election with 73% of the vote, reinforcing his democratic mandate.
Kyiv is still awaiting
Zelenskyy stated that Ukraine will lose up to 20% of its military support if a Trump administration halts aid. He noted that Kyiv is still awaiting weapons promised at last year’s NATO summit. Kyiv urgently needs an extra 20 Patriot missile systems. This is a $30 billion demand just to counter Russian airstrikes.
Meanwhile, European leaders, including UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron, are stepping up their involvement. Both are set to meet with Trump this week before an anticipated European summit focused on security guarantees for Ukraine.
Zelenskyy’s latest remarks highlight the growing complexities in Ukraine’s fight for sovereignty. The struggle is not just against Russian aggression. It also involves navigating geopolitical power plays.
He refused the US mineral deal and demanded fair security commitments. Zelenskyy is signaling that Ukraine is not merely a pawn in a great-power struggle. Instead, it is a nation determined to secure a just and lasting peace on its own terms.
President Donald Trump’s Strategy
Trump’s strategy appears to be a transactional, business-like approach to diplomacy—reducing US involvement, cutting financial burdens, and prioritizing economic opportunities.
This leads to a quicker resolution. But, it often comes at the cost of Ukraine’s long-term security. It also affect Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
The key question remains: Will Trump’s deal actually end the war on fair terms? Or will it be a temporary fix that benefits Russia more than Ukraine?
As negotiations continue, the world will be watching closely. People want to see if the US, Russia, and Europe can align on a framework. This framework must truly support Ukraine’s long-term security. The world also wonders if economic and political interests will take precedence over justice.