MP explains why U.S.-Ukraine minerals deal wasn’t ratified in Congress

He shared this during an interview on Espreso.

"The biggest concern among MPs was the existence of one agreement, specifically three documents. This was widely discussed in the media. I want to emphasize that the U.S. initially aimed to sign the agreement exclusively at the intergovernmental level. That is, it was not supposed to involve ratification or become public. However, the Ukrainian side insisted on ratification through the Ukrainian parliament, as many aspects concerned Ukrainian territory, especially the ownership of Ukrainian minerals and how the people of Ukraine should manage them," Kytsak explained.

The lawmaker clarified that although the mining agreement was not ratified by the US Congress, the institution’s role in this matter remains significant, particularly in the implementation of the agreement.

"Another concern was why the U.S. did not ratify the mining agreement in Congress. It is worth noting that 67% of the agreements signed by the U.S. are not ratified. This is because these agreements do not contain elements that directly concern U.S. territory or jurisdiction. Therefore, this agreement did not need to go through all the structures of Congress. 

However, since Congress will be responsible for the American side of the investment fund, consultations and reporting on the progress of the agreement's implementation and signing were conducted with the American side. The oversight of Congress in this matter is at a high level," he added.

• On May 8, the Ukrainian parliament ratified the agreement between Ukraine and the U.S. regarding minerals.
• Ukrainian MP Mykola Kniazhytskyi revealed that the ratified agreement with the U.S. on rare-earth minerals contains no mention of security, but it does include a provision for the supply of weapons.