The USA demands from Ukraine to trade land for illusion of peace

From the Obozrevatel:

"Donbas in exchange for the illusion of peace or capitulation: what is actually being demanded of Ukraine and will the "Trump plan" survive a clash with the Kremlin? Interview with Ohryzko 

Roman Pryadun, December 16, 2025 

Exclusive interview for OBOZ.UA with Volodymir Ohryzko, former Ukrainian Foreign Minister. 

– It seems the peace talks have devolved into a kind of tug-of-war between the Americans and Ukrainians, without Russia's participation. This was confirmed by the two-day meeting in Berlin that concluded yesterday. As a result, there was no progress on the most problematic issues: territories and security guarantees. The Americans have made no concessions on their proposals. In your opinion, are the United States simply trying to continue to push through the plan initially proposed to Ukraine, or is there some search for compromise?

In reality, Russian-Ukrainian negotiations are currently taking place through Trump, where he's speaking from Putin's perspective and is essentially trying to achieve the goals the dictator outlined in his plan, which the US president then presented as supposedly American. Therefore, in my opinion, we shouldn't look at all this back-and-forth. We need to look at the essence of the matter. Which is that Trump continues to side with the Kremlin. He refuses to see the essence of this war, which is aggression.  

Frankly, I don't see any deadlines right now, not even before the end of the year or before Christmas. It's all, you know, diplomatic... I don't want to use the word "chatter," but that's the gist of it. This whole story reminds me of a way for the Americans to close the issue as quickly as possible, satisfy Putin, and call it a day. So I don't see any prospects. And when they tell us the war is about to end, just a little bit more, just ten more meters, and that's it—it's all a grandstanding game. That's not what's really happening. Because it's obvious we can't agree to the demands Moscow is putting forward through Trump, who, as you can see, has once again started accusing Zelensky of not being a democrat, of clinging to power, of needing elections. Please tell me why Trump doesn't care that Belarus hasn't had elections for a quarter of a century? And yet sanctions are being lifted, particularly against Belaruskali.

And then suddenly we've had a year without elections because there's a war going on and martial law is in effect. And this, you see, has become Trump's number one topic. He can't live without it. He wakes up in the morning and thinks: how can it be that Ukraine hasn't had an election for a whole year? This isn't Trump's topic. This is Putin's topic, which he planted in Trump's head, and now Trump is simply doing what Putin wants. Let's finally look at this with a completely sober mind.

 

– Is a compromise possible between Donald Trump's plan and Ukraine's position? Is this compromise truly being sought, or is pressure simply continuing on Volodymyr Zelenskyy? 

 

This is pressure. It's perfectly obvious here, in my opinion. All these "until tomorrow," "until the day after tomorrow," all these deadlines—all these classic psychological pressure. But right now, I think we're pursuing a fairly reasonable approach. You want elections? No problem. We want elections too; we're a democratic country. But how are we going to hold elections, and how are the service members on the front lines supposed to participate? How are they supposed to vote? Send ballots to territorial election commissions via drones? That's insane. And how are we going to hold elections for those who were forced to flee Russian aggression and are now in Europe? We don't have the physical capacity to organize that...

 

– The same applies to the security guarantees that we are promised, but the American formula looks like this: you first agree to the concessions that we offer, and only then will we consider security guarantees.

 

It's a good story, but certainly not for us. We've agreed to similar things before. Under American pressure, when the issue was depriving Ukraine of nuclear weapons. We didn't give them up voluntarily. We need to understand this clearly and distinctly. We were forced. And now we bear the consequences. This bitter experience has cost us millions of victims, thousands upon thousands of deaths. So we have experience with coercion. And I think we no longer have the moral, political, or any other right to repeat such things.  

What is security? It's when the US pushes a law through Congress that clearly states: if Russia attacks again, the US military will enter the war. Period. That's when we can talk about something. Everything else is just talk, and talk about talk.

– Regarding Donbas, the Americans proposed what they see as a compromise: a buffer zone, an economic zone. The Ukrainian army withdraws from the territories it currently controls, and the Russian army does not enter these territories. How do you assess this option? Is it acceptable and is it even feasible? Because, beyond the names, no one understands what tools could be used to achieve this.

That's exactly what we're talking about. The Americans are throwing around slogans right now. "Buffer zone, Russians don't invade." But the Russians will find three and a half thousand excuses to invade on the second day. We must be realistic and understand that all of this is utter nonsense. Our negotiators are right: if we retreat forty kilometers, then Russia must retreat at least forty, and preferably one hundred and forty, because it is the aggressor. But the Americans don't even think about that. Therefore, I repeat once again: the current American position is actually the Russian position, which they are trying to implement. We must speak about this clearly and distinctly. Although, of course, such things cannot be said officially.  

We will thank the Americans for their "leadership" in the peace settlement, but at the same time, we soberly understand that we absolutely do not need a Trojan horse of Russia. And we must stand our ground, alongside the Europeans, proving to Trump personally that he is, in fact, openly and blatantly playing into Russia's hands. 

– Do Americans even understand Putin's vision for Ukraine, that is, his actual goals? Because, for example, German Chancellor Merz clearly drew a historical parallel: the Sudetenland was once given to Hitler, and he didn't stop there. Today, if Putin were given Donbas, it would be exactly the same story.

I think the current American administration simply isn't thinking that far. They don't even ask themselves such questions. Because for them, the main issue is how to quickly restore business opportunities in Russia. And, crucially, not just American business, but specific businesses that are close to the Trump family or directly related. 

And this, in my opinion, is the key to understanding this entire policy. Information is already emerging that people in Trump's inner circle are lobbying for the fastest possible conclusion of all these processes, because at the same time, agreements are being made with the Russians regarding future billions in profits. This is the answer to the question of why Trump's policy is as it is...

This policy is destroying unity within the United States, and we're already seeing it. On the other hand, it's making America look ridiculous on the international stage. Just look at the new national security concept. Republicans are clutching their heads, unable to comprehend where Trump is heading with all this. And all this is for the sake of rebuilding his own business as quickly as possible. For Trump, business is the meaning of life, it's the main focus. He essentially doesn't care about anything else. Hence his approach.

– Regarding the concessions that are being much discussed now and that Ukraine supposedly might accept, one of them is abandoning NATO. The Ukrainian President says: give us real security guarantees, not declarative ones, but real ones, and then perhaps we'll be ready to talk about abandoning NATO.

The situation here is quite clear. Because of America's position, Hungary's, and perhaps one or two other countries', Ukraine's accession to NATO is not realistic today. We've seen how long it took for Sweden and Finland to join, even though they, unlike Ukraine, weren't at war. How long Turkey and Hungary blocked this process, concocting various pretexts. Now imagine what will happen to Ukraine if it follows the same "classic" path.  

Secondly, all countries joining NATO are actually counting on guarantees from the United States of America. Let's be honest. No one is counting on guarantees from, say, Luxembourg or Belgium. No offense, but most Alliance countries don't have the military capabilities to actually deter an aggressor. The United States, Great Britain, and France, as nuclear powers, have such capabilities. The rest have certain conventional forces, but we see that for now they are more theoretical than practical. Therefore, in fact, we are talking specifically about guarantees from the United States. But let's imagine that Congress passed a law, Trump signed it, and we supposedly received these guarantees. I want to recall another law that Trump personally signed in 2017. It clearly stated that the United States would never recognize the occupation of Crimea and part of Donbas. Less than ten years have passed, and Trump simply "ignores" this law, lobbying for the de facto recognition of Crimea as Russian territory. Where's the guarantee that tomorrow he won't say, "I signed the law, but right now we don't have the capacity. The Pentagon says we have no weapons, no forces, no resources. We've already helped you." We don't need that kind of guarantee. We need a guarantee of immediate entry into the war in the event of further Russian aggression.

If there's no such guarantee, all the others are just words. Then our main guarantee is the Ukrainian Armed Forces, the Defense Forces, and real, practical assistance from Europeans. And, thank God, today there are at least a dozen countries in Europe that openly say, "We will fight if necessary." It's precisely with such countries that agreements must be concluded. Not formal "security papers," but real agreements that can form the basis of a new format for European security. 

 

Because NATO, as we see, is currently limping along. The US, represented by Trump, is effectively saying that it doesn't really need NATO. Therefore, the issue of guarantees is increasingly shifting, in my opinion, to the European sphere...

– It's not at all a given that this plan will work, and then we'll have to take a different path to achieve peace in Ukraine and end Russian aggression. First, what path do you think is possible in this case? And second, Trump is very fond of shifting responsibility for his mistakes onto others. If this plan fails, who will he shift the blame to? Will it be Ukraine? Because it seems he's not prepared to do that with Putin. What could be the consequences?

The path is actually very simple and very tough. It's our new drones, our long-range missiles, our ballistic missiles. It's the destruction of oil and gas infrastructure inside Russia. It's the destruction of military facilities on Russian territory to a depth of up to a thousand kilometers, maybe even more. And it's strengthening European sanctions against Russia. These are the paths we have left. We simply have no other. Because Trump-style diplomacy is unacceptable to us. This is diplomacy that is truly entirely in line with Putin's wishes. And, in fact, this, I believe, will be the key point. 

And who will Trump shift the blame to? It's clear who. Ukraine and Europe. Look at what Russian propaganda is broadcasting today. Europe is to blame for everything. And Trump is a good guy. He sees everything correctly, he strives for cooperation between the US and Russia, he wants to invite Russia either to some "Group of Five" or to replace the "Group of Seven" with it.

So, everything's great. And who's the bad guys? The Europeans are bad, especially the British, French, and Germans. And there's no need to even mention the Ukrainians. That's the logic both Trump and Putin adhere to. And in this, I think, they're absolutely united.

– The majority of Americans continue to support military support for Ukraine despite the actions of the Donald Trump administration... Why did Trump ignore American opinion?   

...The fact that most Americans support Ukraine speaks to a simple fact: they understand who the aggressor is and who the victim is. But when Trump sees the prospect of yet more billions of dollars in profit, the opinions of ordinary Americans regarding Ukraine become secondary to him. When he smells big money, that's his primary policy vector. He won't deviate from it. He won't be able to run again, so this is his last chance to "think about his great-grandchildren," if that's what he's thinking about, and make as much money as possible. Everything else is secondary... 

— In your opinion, how will the situation with the peace talks and this Trump plan develop? Will it be that same "football" where the Americans throw out more offers to Ukraine, we rebuff them, and Russia watches as the US essentially destroys its relations with Ukraine and Europe? 

I think this ping-pong, as you aptly put it, will continue. So far, to no avail. From this, we must draw a simple conclusion: our real guarantee of security is the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the Defense Forces, and the strategic alliance with Europe. As one highly respected Ukrainian military officer said, if we reduce the number of Russian invaders by a thousand or more every day, then at some point this bloody bandit will simply have no one left to cover the holes. Therefore, don't believe the fantastical stories about the war ending tomorrow or the day after. Unfortunately, that won't happen."