Zelenskyy Warned: US-Ukraine Mineral Pact Deemed Unfair And Unrealistic By Economist

A senior Ukrainian economist, Volodymyr Landa, affiliated with the Centre for Economic Strategy in Kyiv, has raised concerns regarding the US-Ukraine mineral agreement, describing it as both “unfair” and “unrealistic.” His remarks were published in a Guardian UK report.

Landa highlighted that the proposed mineral accord has undergone several changes and remains vague in terms of its core content. He said, “It’s hard to say what’s inside,” implying that the agreement lacks transparency and definitive structure.

Zelenskyy Pushes for Equal Partnership Terms

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is working to improve diplomatic and economic ties with the United States, especially in the context of resource development. However, he has rejected the U.S. condition that funds generated from the new joint mineral resource initiative should be used to offset the cost of military supplies provided by the Biden administration.

It’s worth noting that former President Donald Trump had publicly claimed that Ukraine owed the U.S. $300 billion, sparking international debate on the matter.

In response, President Zelenskyy reaffirmed that the aid received was granted by Congress with bipartisan approval and was not meant to be repaid. He emphasized that future collaborations must be equitable and beneficial to both nations, advocating for a “parity-based” partnership.

“Our cooperation must not be framed in debt but in shared prosperity and fairness,” Zelenskyy stated in a recent press briefing.

Global Economic Repercussions Feared

Landa warned that forcing Ukraine to treat previously non-refundable aid as debt could lead to serious global economic implications.

“If it suddenly becomes acceptable to convert unconditional support into retroactive debt, it may damage financial trust worldwide,” he noted.

Such a precedent could discourage nations and international organizations from offering grants in the future, knowing they might later be held liable for repayment. This could reopen long-settled geopolitical and economic issues, setting a dangerous standard for international aid and partnerships.