Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on February 23, 2025, that Kyiv was not prepared to accept the latest U.S. proposal concerning Ukraine's mineral and natural-resource revenues, while stressing that negotiations with Washington would continue.
His remarks came at a particularly sensitive moment in relations between Kyiv and Washington. The Trump administration was pressing for an economic agreement as it simultaneously pursued talks with Russia about ending the war. Ukraine, meanwhile, insisted that it must participate in negotiations determining its future and continued to seek concrete security guarantees.
Why Zelenskyy rejected the proposed terms
The dispute centered on draft terms under which revenues associated with Ukrainian natural resources and other assets would contribute to a U.S.-linked investment arrangement. Zelenskyy objected in particular to a proposed figure of $500 billion, arguing that it was far out of proportion to the value of U.S. assistance Ukraine had received.
"I am not signing something that 10 generations of Ukrainians will have to repay," Zelenskyy said, while making clear that negotiations had not ended.
He also objected to provisions that he said could require Ukraine to compensate the United States at twice the value of certain future assistance. More broadly, Kyiv had repeatedly argued that an economic partnership involving strategic resources should be accompanied by meaningful provisions addressing Ukraine's long-term security.
President Donald Trump, speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference on February 22, said the two countries were close to an agreement and emphasized his administration's goal of obtaining economic benefits connected to previous U.S. support for Ukraine.
The negotiations were still evolving, however, and the disputed February proposal should not be confused with the agreement that the two governments ultimately reached later in 2025.
Ukraine insists on a place at the negotiating table
Zelenskyy also rejected the idea that a settlement of the Russia-Ukraine war could be negotiated by Washington and Moscow without Kyiv's participation.
He described Ukraine's preferred negotiating format as involving Ukraine, Europe, the United States and Russia. The issue had become more urgent after senior U.S. and Russian officials met in Saudi Arabia earlier in February without Ukrainian representatives at the table.
That exclusion alarmed Kyiv and several European governments, which argued that a durable settlement would require Ukraine's participation and credible arrangements for its future security.
Zelenskyy's relationship with Trump had also deteriorated publicly. Trump had questioned Zelenskyy's political legitimacy and called him a "dictator without elections." Ukraine has remained under martial law since Russia's full-scale invasion, and a presidential election that would ordinarily have taken place in 2024 was not held while martial law remained in force.
Trump had also said Ukraine "should have never started" the war. Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, after having seized Crimea and initiated military intervention in eastern Ukraine in 2014.
Zelenskyy's remarks about stepping down and NATO
At his February 23 news conference, Zelenskyy said he would be prepared to leave office if doing so secured peace for Ukraine, and he suggested that he could exchange his presidency for Ukrainian membership in NATO.
"If peace for Ukraine requires me to step down, I'm ready," he said, adding that another possibility would be trading his position for NATO membership.
The comments did not amount to a formal resignation offer or indicate that Ukraine's NATO accession was imminent. Membership requires agreement among NATO allies, and the question of Ukraine's future in the alliance remained politically contested.
What the remarks did underscore was Kyiv's continuing emphasis on security guarantees as a central issue in any settlement ending the war.
International leaders gather in Kyiv
The following day, February 24, Ukraine marked three years since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion with a major international gathering in Kyiv. More than 40 heads of state and government, EU officials and international-organization leaders participated in person or remotely in the "Support Ukraine" plenary session.
Leaders who traveled to Kyiv included European Council President António Costa, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and leaders from several Nordic and Baltic countries.
Discussions focused on continued military and economic support, Europe's role in potential peace negotiations and the security arrangements that could accompany any future settlement.
Ukraine and the Nordic-Baltic countries issued a joint statement saying that Ukraine and Europe should participate in future negotiations and that Ukraine should receive strong security guarantees.
A record drone assault underscored the continuing war
The diplomatic maneuvering took place while fighting continued. During the night of February 22-23, Ukrainian authorities said Russia launched 267 drones as well as three ballistic missiles against Ukraine.
Ukraine's Air Force reported that 138 drones were shot down and 119 were lost from tracking without reaching their intended targets, while several others flew toward Russia or Belarus. Reuters reported that the 267-drone barrage was, at that point, the largest single drone attack Ukraine had recorded since Russia's full-scale invasion began.
The figures originated with Ukrainian authorities, although the scale of the attack was also widely reported by international news organizations. Damage was reported in several Ukrainian regions.
The attack illustrated the gap between intensifying diplomatic efforts and conditions on the ground: negotiations over a possible settlement were accelerating, but active hostilities had not stopped and no ceasefire was in force.
What happened to the minerals dispute later
The February confrontation did not end U.S.-Ukrainian negotiations. The proposed terms changed substantially during further talks.
On April 30, 2025, the United States and Ukraine signed an agreement establishing the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund. The final arrangement was materially different from the disputed proposals discussed in February, including the earlier $500 billion demand.
The fund was designed as a joint economic partnership focused on investment and Ukraine's long-term reconstruction rather than as a straightforward repayment of the earlier $500 billion figure.
By September 2025, the fund's board had held its inaugural meeting and begun putting governance and investment mechanisms in place. In March 2026, the fund approved its first investment, and by June 2026 U.S. officials said it was examining a pipeline of projects across sectors including energy, infrastructure, technology and critical minerals.
Those later developments are important because they clarify the status of the February 2025 dispute: Zelenskyy's rejection concerned proposed terms under negotiation at that time, not the economic partnership ultimately signed by Ukraine and the United States two months later.
The larger issue was security, not minerals alone
The minerals negotiations were one part of a much broader argument over Ukraine's relationship with the United States and Europe, the terms of any negotiations with Russia and the security architecture that would follow a ceasefire or peace settlement.
For Kyiv, the central concern was that an economic agreement by itself would not necessarily prevent another Russian attack. Zelenskyy argued that previous American commercial activity in Ukraine had not deterred Russia's invasion, and Ukrainian officials continued to seek stronger security commitments.
European governments likewise emphasized that Ukraine should participate directly in negotiations affecting its sovereignty and security. NATO officials, while reaffirming support for Ukraine, continued to treat membership and other long-term security arrangements as matters requiring agreement among allies rather than as automatic outcomes of the diplomatic process.
The dispute of February 2025 therefore represented a negotiating stage rather than a final rupture. Kyiv rejected terms it considered unacceptable, Washington continued pressing for an economic partnership, and both governments subsequently negotiated a substantially revised agreement while the larger questions of war, peace and Ukraine's long-term security remained separate and more difficult issues.
0 Comments