During the NV Ukraine and Peace Ahead 2026 event, Head of the Servant of the People faction in the Verkhovna Rada, David Arakhamia, stated that any agreement to cease hostilities with Russia would be “bad, very bad, or there will be none.”
“A good agreement (with Russia on a ceasefire — ed.) cannot exist, we all understand this, everyone who thinks rationally. Although many people still believe we should insist on some fantastic conditions for an agreement. So it will either be bad or very bad, we all understand that. Or there will be none,” Arakhamia said.
He noted that the chances of such an agreement being reached at all depend on the involvement of the United States.
“With the Americans now, despite the fact that they pressure us more than themselves, we all understand, right? But there is a chance. Without them, I believe there is no chance; the only path would be a military solution,” said the head of the Servant of the People faction.
Arakhamia pointed out that everyone more or less understands the red lines of such an agreement.
“One issue, actually, two, remain. We need security guarantees to ensure 100% that the war will not return to us. … And this has been the case since Istanbul — security guarantees are number one — what Ukraine needs. But they want the Donbas in some form. And here we have a red line: we cannot give up our Donbas. Even if some politicians proposed this, I am certain … it is impossible to implement. Talking about it is impossible, … and certainly it cannot be put into any law, let alone voted on,” the politician explained.
He continued that, since this issue cannot be fully resolved, the only possible path is “to do something around the Donbas, some hybrid models,” for which the Russians need to be ready.
“Right now their (Russian side — ed.) rhetoric is very simple, black and white, as they say — give the Donbas, there are various promises — we will not send our people in, but it must be Russian territory,” Arakhamia said.
He added that because of this, there is not “even a negotiation corridor.”
The politician explained that the American and Ukrainian sides are trying to find an alternative format to resolve the Donbas issue, looking at various historical precedents.
Arakhamia also emphasized that while these discussions continue, it is necessary to specify the security guarantees that are currently promised at the level of NATO’s Article 5.
“But if you open and look at NATO’s Article 5 on Wikipedia, it says — in the event of military aggression, NATO countries must meet within 72 hours for consultations. I apologize, but on February 24, in 72 hours, we almost lost Ukraine. That does not satisfy us. … So there must be specifics: how much and what type of weapons, what size our army is, how it is funded, what so-called deterrence packages we have, missiles and so on,” said the head of the Servant of the People faction.
Russia had many red lines in the past. They were crossed, and now they're going to take an eraser to one of Ukraine's "red lines".
Threat of war 100% returning once Ukraine forgets its agreement would serve a better foundation for lasting peace. After all Russia needs its guarantees too, and this one is the best in this case. Well not counting full annexation of Ukraine or setting up bases all over it.
Worked for Finland, will work for Ukraine.
The problem is anytime security garuntees for Russia are brought up on western newscast, European analysts quickly get upset and remind people that Russia started this war out of the blue, for absolutely no reason but that they were jealous. They never mention the Odessa fires or how the Ukrainian government were shelling the Donbas against their own people for 8 years. Only that Ukraine needs secure garuntees, a freeze to the fighting, no lifting of sanctions and reparations. No talk of a permanent end because that will only come after both Russia and Ukraine come to an agreement for Russia to surrender and leave the Donbas and Crimea. They honestly think the Russians are complete morons to bite on this looney tune style deception.
Its a fixation on a Disney morality story, where good always wins through the power of courage and friendship. Why do the good guys always win? Because they're good, thats why. And because its a story written for little children.
In geopolitics it doesn't matter who started it, who claims the moral high ground, who claims legality, who claims they deserve it, etc. All of that is irrelevant.
In geopolitics if you can't defend it then its not yours. Might makes right, and might has always made right. The "rules based order" the EU is so fond of talking about was created by the might of the American military. Don't agree with it? Then get a bigger army so you can impose your version of what is right.
There does not appear to be any bigger army going to the rescue of Ukraine, so Russia will be the one deciding Ukraine's ultimate fate.
>for absolutely no reason
Not for "no reason". Just no sound, rational, intelligent reason.
"but that they were jealous" is just silly. No one thinks that.
> They never mention the Odessa fires or how the Ukrainian government were shelling the Donbas against their own people for 8 years.
Because these are just rhetorical talking points, especially the latter.
As if both sides weren't shelling each other and otherwise killing civilians during this time, in pretty much equal measure. As if 42 mostly unintended deaths (most of which were likely caused by the actions of a certain individual currently residing in the Russian Federation, btw) could ever be helped or addressed by starting a war on track to kill/maim 1M+ people, most of them Russian-speaking.
Neither of these talking points explains why Putin made the decision that he did. They're simply rhetorical devices, designed to push your emotional buttons. And to distract you from the real reasons.
If these Western leaders were 100% truthful, they would admit that this conflict started as a proxy war starting with Maidan, between Pro-western Ukrainians and Pro-Russian Ukrainians. One is backed by the US (primarily)/EU and the otherside by the Russians. And the shelling was concentrated in the Donbas region where the separatists were based out of, Kyiv didnt have to worry about shelling or bombing until the Russians got directly involved. The Ukrainian Maidan government were also assassinating leaders of the DPR/LPR, not the other way around.
Putin decided in February 2022, that it was in Russia's best interest to intervene directly to prevent the separatists from losing the war and leaving them to a similar fate that Pro-Russians civilians faced from groups like Azov after Maidan. Western journalists never mention any of this and its done purposely because they know the more people look at the full history, the more Russian sympathizers it'll create and that's counter productive to our government goal of a globalized liberal Democracy.
It didn't worked with Finland, as we see it is again part of antirussian military alliance
West never can be believed.
It took 70 years and geopolitical situation changing massively not unlike after a big deadly war, so good enough. Nothing is permanent.
[removed]
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account and/or more karma to post and comment in this subreddit. This is to protect against bots and multis
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Too bad we can't get Russia in NATO. That would solve a lot of problems.
An agreement with Russia will either be bad, very bad, or there will be no Ukraine.
There, fixed it for ya.
> there will be no Ukraine.
In about 80 years, at current rate of territorial gain.
A linear warfare bro, in natural habitat.
[deleted]
We'll see.
David Arakhamia was one of the key negotiators in early attempts to stop the war. First directly with Dmitry Kozak and then during the Istanbul negotiations. I think the situation is exactly as he described here, given the current political climate in Kiev, it is impossible and dangerous for any politician to ratify territorial concessions, but without them, no peace deal is possible.
>>“One issue, actually, two, remain. We need security guarantees to ensure 100% that the war will not return to us. … And this has been the case since Istanbul — security guarantees are number one — what Ukraine needs. But they want the Donbas in some form. And here we have a red line: we cannot give up our Donbas. Even if some politicians proposed this, I am certain … it is impossible to implement. Talking about it is impossible, … and certainly it cannot be put into any law, let alone voted on,” the politician explained.<<
Unfortunately such approach is still very unrealistic (to put it very mildly).
What kind of "security guarantees" he has in mind? How would such guarantees look like, and how would they work? Why everybody is repeating this phrase, but nobody wants to go into detail about it?
If he believes that there is even one country in the world willing to declare war on Russia to defend Ukraine, he's deluding himself.
There is also another problem. What about security grantees for Russia? Let's say 10 or 20 years from now, Ukraine gets strong and thinks it can retake taken territories and then attacks Russian troops in those territories.
Would rest of the Europe act like Ukraine is an aggressor and sanction it to hell and give military aid to Russia and such, or will they again support Ukraine with stuff?
If the latter, then the thing was rigged from the beginning and Russia has no incentive to accept any security grantees given by the Europe.
I'm amazed at how many people believe that Russia attacked Ukraine for no good reason.
I mean Russia warned Ukraine this would happen repeatedly....what did they expect?
Luckily people are starting to figure it out.
No deal now, only means a much worse deal later.
Russia think that they can get all ussr territories back by force but Russia will cease to exist in 10 years
Article 5 is not enough for these fellows lmao.
No logic remains whatsoever, just pure death drive.
Sounds like the only realistic option is a defeat on the battlefield. US has no reason to provide security guarantees with real teeth to Ukraine. And Russia has no reason to accept that as part of a peace deal.
There is probably some wiggle room on Donbas but Russia has no real reason to budge on its demands.
Ukraine needs to bring something to the table or just wait out public opinion souring enough for a realistic peace deal to be acceptable.