Ukrainian lawmaker: Putin will accept no peace plan that would prevent the destruction of Ukraine

From UNIAN:

"Putin will not be satisfied with any peace plan that prevents him from destroying Ukraine, says Merezhko 

Tanya Polyakovskaya, December 24, 2025 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy outlined the 20-point peace plan that Ukraine developed jointly with the United States... UNIAN spoke about this plan with Oleksandr Merezhko, Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Foreign Policy and Interparliamentary Cooperation. 

- Does the "framework" plan, as outlined by Zelenskyy, have a chance of being adopted in Russia? What points will Putin definitely disagree with? 

Absolutely not. The fact is that they (Russia, - ed.) stupidly and stubbornly repeat their demands, which, in essence, amount to Ukraine's capitulation. That is, they demand, first of all, the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the Donetsk region. Recently, they've even started hinting at a "Novorossiya." This means their appetites could expand, and, accordingly, their demands. 

Secondly, they demand a "neutral status for Ukraine," which is unacceptable to us. It's impossible, both legally and politically, from the standpoint of the state's survival—giving up the prospect of NATO membership. 

Thirdly, restrictions on our armed forces, so-called demilitarization, or holding elections, for example. Some of Russia's demands are aimed at weakening our defenses as much as possible, so that they can be seized in the future. Others are aimed at destroying us from within. 

In other words, all their demands have one goal: to destroy Ukraine, to subjugate and destroy Ukrainian statehood. And we must understand that everything else is just words, a political game. Putin has not abandoned this primary goal: the destruction of Ukraine. 

Therefore, he will not be satisfied with any option, any plan that does not give him the opportunity to destroy us. This must be understood very clearly. Of course, we must negotiate so that Trump sees that we are committed to peace, that the issue is not about us. This is to prevent Putin from shifting responsibility onto us, as he is trying to do through Vitkoff. 

 

Now the project will be presented to Russia. Putin won't even read it. He will repeat: "It's not a bad plan, but fulfill our demands." He formulated what he demands from the West: "We need to be respected, our interests." What are they? Very simple ones: a sphere of influence. "Give us Ukraine, our sphere of influence. Stop supporting Ukraine so that we can destroy its statehood." This is Putin's main demand. He is not refusing and is unlikely to refuse. Only when the pressure is so great that he has no other choice. Therefore, the plan is correct, but we should not expect it to produce results.

 

- Doesn't the clause: "If Ukraine invades Russia or opens fire on Russian territory without provocation, security guarantees will be considered null and void. If Russia opens fire on Ukraine, security guarantees will come into effect" open wide scope for manipulation and provocation?

 

Of course. We remember the Minsk agreements. There were constant provocations, the Russians were constantly shelling us. They will continue to do so; let's have no illusions. What are security guarantees? 

 

When you read this draft, you see that there are only abstract formulations, from which it's unclear what exactly is meant by a security guarantee.

 

The only thing that can guarantee security is something that will deter Putin. And what can deter him? Only Ukraine's membership in NATO. Kissinger said that Ukraine absolutely must become a NATO member, but only within the territories currently under NATO control. Kissinger believed that this would guarantee that Ukraine would not begin to liberate these territories by armed force without NATO's consent. That was his plan. It's a highly questionable plan, of course. But at least Kissinger understood that this was the only guarantee of security for Ukraine, even though he was not at all favorable to Ukraine.

 

- Zelenskyy stated that the US wants "compensation for security guarantees," but Zelenskyy himself said Ukraine doesn't understand what that means. What exactly could the US want?

 

First, tell us, what exactly do you mean by security guarantees? If you're against NATO for Ukraine, then give us the security guarantees you gave to Japan and South Korea: a reciprocal bilateral security agreement that clearly states that if Russia attacks Ukraine, the United States will consider it an attack on itself. With corresponding consequences involving the use of armed force. Then I understand. This isn't NATO, but at least let's talk about it. Accordingly, if you agree to this, then it makes sense to discuss the economic aspects.   

 

- And how realistic is an $800 billion investment fund? 

 

We've already signed the Minerals Agreement. It talks about creating such a fund through the extraction of minerals and rare earth metals. But to develop and extract all this, we need peaceful conditions. Because business is unlikely to operate under fire or in occupied territory. So let's first have peace and guarantees, and then start extracting. 

 

- The US plan suggests that the United States will somehow pressure Europe to lift sanctions against Russia, and similarly pressure Europe to admit Ukraine to the European Union. How realistic is this, given the deterioration in US-EU relations over the past year? 

 

The US cannot force Europe to make such decisions. Europe and the EU have their own procedures, and they decide. Trump doesn't understand how EU law operates, how the procedural issues of joining the EU and EU membership work. This is a naive view. Every EU member state must express its consent. This is a rather complex process. There are key states that support Ukraine's membership in the EU, but the United States cannot tell Germany, "Do it." That could be counterproductive. The populations of these countries may not accept attempts to dictate this to them. I would respect the sovereignty of every country that is a member of the European Union. The United States cannot guarantee that Ukraine will become an EU member tomorrow, or next year, or the year after that. That depends on the EU, on its member states...

 

- What, in your opinion, could be the most problematic aspect of all this, and what could provoke rejection and resistance from society and the military? 

 

There are "red lines." First, the limitation of state sovereignty. It is unacceptable for someone to dictate to us whether or not to join another international organization: NATO or any other. We are not dictating Russia's withdrawal from the CSTO. Then there is the issue of territorial concessions, that is, the violation of territorial integrity. This is absolutely unacceptable. In any form. For Ukrainian society, parliament, and the president. 

 

Limiting the size of the army. There's a very simple principle underlying international law: the sovereign equality of states. So, if someone raises the question that Ukraine, the victim of aggression, should limit its defense, then the question arises: why doesn't the the perpetrator of aggression do the same?"