Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has stated that he will not sign a proposed bilateral agreement submitted by representatives of former US President Donald Trump’s administration if the document undermines Ukraine’s obligations to the European Union or hampers the country’s accession process.
The draft agreement, reportedly delivered to Kyiv in recent weeks, has triggered concerns over its compatibility with Ukrainian law, constitutional provisions, and long-term foreign policy objectives.
Speaking during a press briefing on 28 March, Zelenskyy stressed that Ukraine does not regard the military and financial aid provided by the United States over the past three years as a debt to be repaid. His remarks came as Kyiv reviewed the contents of the proposed agreement, which includes provisions that observers describe as granting extensive economic rights to the United States over Ukraine’s natural resources and infrastructure.
According to Ukrainian officials, the document envisages a mechanism whereby the United States would receive full revenue from Ukrainian natural resources until the cumulative value of US assistance is recovered. Thereafter, the US would be entitled to 50 per cent of all future revenues derived from those assets. The proposal, sources say, effectively retroactively reclassifies past aid as credit, to be repaid with interest.
Zelenskyy’s position is supported by constitutional requirements that any such international agreement must be ratified by the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s parliament. However, the draft reportedly contains no reference to ratification, raising concerns about its legal standing. Officials in Kyiv maintain that, without parliamentary approval, any such agreement would be void, and securing the necessary votes is considered politically unfeasible.
Government sources have described the proposal as inconsistent with Ukraine’s legal framework, including constitutional guarantees of sovereignty over natural resources, and its commitments under the EU Association Agreement. They also warn that the agreement, if implemented, would impede Ukraine’s integration into the European single market by introducing preferential access for American companies at odds with EU competition rules.
Zelenskyy’s administration believes the proposed arrangement does not constitute cooperation but rather resembles a colonial model. Senior Ukrainian officials argue that the text was drafted without regard to Ukraine’s legal or economic environment and represents an attempt to impose externally driven economic conditions that would limit the country’s ability to pursue independent policy choices.
Beyond the economic implications, political considerations also play a role. Analysts in Kyiv believe the timing and content of the proposal are part of a broader effort by Trump’s advisers to shift responsibility for the failure of recent ceasefire initiatives onto Ukraine. During earlier attempts to secure a temporary cessation of hostilities — notably in Jeddah — Russian President Vladimir Putin reportedly rejected a 30-day ceasefire proposal attributed to the US. This rejection is said to have prompted Trump’s team to attribute blame to Kyiv for a lack of cooperation.
Zelenskyy’s office maintains that such accusations are unfounded and part of a political strategy to deflect attention from the inability of the Trump team to engage constructively with Moscow. Ukrainian officials have also suggested that the Trump camp views Ukraine’s refusal to sign the draft agreement as a convenient pretext to justify suspending military assistance or intelligence-sharing arrangements.
Observers in Kyiv note that the draft agreement includes clauses preventing Ukraine from engaging in economic agreements with US competitors — a condition considered both unrealistic and incompatible with the country’s foreign policy. The document is further criticised for attempting to tie Ukraine’s hands at a time when the state remains under armed attack and is reliant on foreign assistance for its defence.
Senior Ukrainian legal and foreign policy advisers have concluded that the proposal contravenes multiple domestic statutes, poses a threat to the state’s sovereignty, and contradicts the objectives of Ukraine’s EU membership strategy. They argue that the agreement cannot be signed or implemented under current conditions.
Zelenskyy’s remarks, while measured in tone, are interpreted in diplomatic circles as a categorical rejection of the proposal. Ukrainian officials are proceeding on the assumption that the draft agreement is not intended to be accepted, but rather to serve domestic political objectives in the United States — in particular, to shift political liability away from the Trump campaign’s failure to meet its stated foreign policy objectives.
As Kyiv navigates these developments, the Ukrainian government is emphasising its continued commitment to its European path and to safeguarding the legal and economic integrity of the state. Zelenskyy’s statement reflects a broader consensus within the Ukrainian political establishment that any agreement with the United States must respect the principles of sovereignty, legality, and parity.
Read also:
White House Hopes for Ceasefire Ahead of Easter Amid Continued Fighting in Ukraine
