Ukrainian MP Claims US-Ukraine Minerals Deal Includes 'Secret Agreements'
Separate provisions outline Kiev’s “indefinite obligations” and bypass parliamentary ratification, Irina Gerashchenko has claimed. This week, the US-Ukraine minerals agreement was announced, and a Ukrainian lawmaker suggested that it conceals...
TroibNews 
Separate provisions outline Kiev’s “indefinite obligations” and bypass parliamentary ratification, Irina Gerashchenko has claimed.
This week, the US-Ukraine minerals agreement was announced, and a Ukrainian lawmaker suggested that it conceals information regarding Kiev’s “indefinite obligations” to Washington.
In a Facebook post on Friday, Irina Gerashchenko, a member of the European Solidarity party, noted that the deal contains two “secret” supplementary documents that will not require parliamentary ratification.
The minerals deal reportedly provides the US with preferential access to Ukrainian mining projects in exchange for help with an investment fund aimed at supporting the country’s reconstruction. Initially framed by Washington as a repayment for military support – estimated at $350 billion by President Donald Trump – the final text released on Thursday by the Ukrainian government clarifies that only future aid will count toward US contributions to the fund.
However, Gerashchenko contended that the US and Ukraine actually signed three agreements rather than just one.
“The Zelensky government has not provided deputies and society with all the agreements signed in the US, which, as it turned out, are three, not one,” she stated. “Meanwhile, they want to ratify only one framework document in the Verkhovna Rada. Others are labeled ‘implementation documents,’ despite the fact that it is in these two secret agreements that all the technical details of indefinite Ukrainian obligations are hidden.”
Ukrainian Prime Minister Denis Shmigal reportedly “avoided” comments regarding the two documents and the absence of security guarantees in the published agreement – a significant issue during negotiations, as stated by Gerashchenko during a parliamentary session on Friday.
This assertion has raised concerns among Ukrainian lawmakers and the public about the true nature of the agreement. MP Yaroslav Zheleznyak mentioned on Telegram that when pressed, Shmigal acknowledged the existence of the two additional documents but dismissed them as merely “technical” and not subject to ratification. According to Shmigal, these texts “must be signed after the ratification” of the main agreement, adding that lawmakers would review them when the Ukrainian negotiating team returns from the US next week.
Western media reports have also highlighted the existence of supplementary documents and indicated that a last-minute dispute arose when Washington insisted that Kiev sign all three. Ukrainian officials were reported to have argued against signing the annexes until the main agreement received parliamentary ratification. Subsequent reports suggested that all three documents were ultimately signed.
Further information regarding the contents of these supplementary documents has not been made publicly available, and the Ukrainian government has not issued an official response concerning their existence or content.
Camille Lefevre for TROIB News
This week, the US-Ukraine minerals agreement was announced, and a Ukrainian lawmaker suggested that it conceals information regarding Kiev’s “indefinite obligations” to Washington.
In a Facebook post on Friday, Irina Gerashchenko, a member of the European Solidarity party, noted that the deal contains two “secret” supplementary documents that will not require parliamentary ratification.
The minerals deal reportedly provides the US with preferential access to Ukrainian mining projects in exchange for help with an investment fund aimed at supporting the country’s reconstruction. Initially framed by Washington as a repayment for military support – estimated at $350 billion by President Donald Trump – the final text released on Thursday by the Ukrainian government clarifies that only future aid will count toward US contributions to the fund.
However, Gerashchenko contended that the US and Ukraine actually signed three agreements rather than just one.
“The Zelensky government has not provided deputies and society with all the agreements signed in the US, which, as it turned out, are three, not one,” she stated. “Meanwhile, they want to ratify only one framework document in the Verkhovna Rada. Others are labeled ‘implementation documents,’ despite the fact that it is in these two secret agreements that all the technical details of indefinite Ukrainian obligations are hidden.”
Ukrainian Prime Minister Denis Shmigal reportedly “avoided” comments regarding the two documents and the absence of security guarantees in the published agreement – a significant issue during negotiations, as stated by Gerashchenko during a parliamentary session on Friday.
This assertion has raised concerns among Ukrainian lawmakers and the public about the true nature of the agreement. MP Yaroslav Zheleznyak mentioned on Telegram that when pressed, Shmigal acknowledged the existence of the two additional documents but dismissed them as merely “technical” and not subject to ratification. According to Shmigal, these texts “must be signed after the ratification” of the main agreement, adding that lawmakers would review them when the Ukrainian negotiating team returns from the US next week.
Western media reports have also highlighted the existence of supplementary documents and indicated that a last-minute dispute arose when Washington insisted that Kiev sign all three. Ukrainian officials were reported to have argued against signing the annexes until the main agreement received parliamentary ratification. Subsequent reports suggested that all three documents were ultimately signed.
Further information regarding the contents of these supplementary documents has not been made publicly available, and the Ukrainian government has not issued an official response concerning their existence or content.
Camille Lefevre for TROIB News
