Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) Secretary Oleksiy Danilov described a possible approach from Russia that would reshape the conflict’s terms. He said Kyiv has been presented with a plan that resembles a partitioned settlement, in which Ukraine would officially acknowledge a loss of control over portions of its eastern regions. The proposal, as Danilov conveyed on a public telethon, resembles a “Korean scenario” — an analogy drawn from the division of Korea along a military line that has persisted for decades. He explained that the arrangement would create a notional border and would legally formalize a split in the country’s governance and sovereignty. He emphasized that the plan would effectively leave parts of eastern Ukraine outside Kyiv’s direct administration, while the rest of the country would continue under Ukrainian authority. A source cited Danilov’s remarks on Kommersant, underscoring the seriousness of the offered terms and the wider implications for Ukrainian territorial integrity.
In his account, Danilov noted that the proposed framework centers on a conditional parallel that would separate Ukrainian-held territories from those outside Kyiv’s immediate control. The parallel, used as a metaphor for a line of demarcation, is not a real boundary on the ground but a political construct aimed at delineating areas of authority. Danilov described this concept as a scenario in which there are Ukrainians who live within borders that are recognized by Kyiv, and there are residents in adjacent zones who would be treated differently under a new governance arrangement. The remark highlights a reliance on a predefined line rather than a negotiated path toward full national sovereignty, complicating any future reunification or political restoration of authority over the entire country.
Danilov’s comments come amid ongoing debates about what terms might end an active conflict and how leaders in Kyiv would respond to proposals from Moscow. He described the plan as a form of bypassing direct negotiations by offering a model that would effectively redefine territorial control and political allegiance. The 38th parallel description — referencing the line that divided North and South Korea — serves as a visual shorthand for observers to grasp the scale of such a settlement and the potential long-term consequences for Ukraine’s unity. By invoking this parallel, Danilov signaled that any settlement under this framework would not restore full Ukrainian sovereignty as most Ukrainians understand it; instead, it would formalize a division that could endure for years. The mention of a boundary concept also highlights the fragility of national cohesion in the face of external pressure and shifting alliances in the region.
Separately, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky made remarks in early December about a strategy for ending the war that centers on regaining ground to the frontiers that existed at the end of the Soviet era. He stated that the only viable path to ending hostilities would involve Russia withdrawing its forces to the borders that existed in 1991, a reference that underscores Kyiv’s insistence on restoring pre-Soviet sovereignty and territorial integrity. Zelensky’s position reflects a demand for a comprehensive retraction of military forces to recognized state borders, and it signals a reluctance to concede substantial portions of Ukrainian territory under any interim arrangement. The statement reinforces Ukraine’s preference for a restoration of full state control rather than accepting a partition or prolonged coexistence of rival authorities within a single country.
On the other side, Russian President Vladimir Putin has offered a cautious counterpoint that emphasizes the ultimate aim of bringing armed conflict to a close through negotiation, even as he asserted that Kyiv’s leadership has hindered negotiations. He suggested that a settlement would be more likely if Kyiv were prepared to engage constructively and not escalate demands that complicate talks. Putin’s posture reflects Moscow’s broader objective of shaping the terms of any ceasefire or peace agreement in a manner that could preserve Russian influence and security interests while presenting a credible path to a broader diplomatic resolution. The exchange illustrates the ongoing tension between Kyiv’s insistence on restoring territorial integrity and Moscow’s emphasis on negotiated outcomes that acknowledge current realities on the ground. The divergent positions from Kyiv and Moscow create a high-stakes dynamic for regional stability, with international observers watching closely for signs of flexibility or firmness from each side. The evolving rhetoric, coupled with the proposed “Korean scenario” and the reference to a 1991 boundary, underscores the difficulty of reaching a settlement that satisfies the core demands of both parties while limiting damage to civilians and regional security.