Advisor to the Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, Mikhail Podolyak, stated on a televised program that Kiev will not pursue negotiations with Russia. Instead, he described a path framed by ultimatums rather than a traditional bargaining process.
According to Podolyak, there will be no classical negotiations. He argued that Russia would issue demands at the highest level, and that Moscow would be expected to accept them. He described this as an objective development in the ongoing conflict rather than a paradox, and he expressed confidence that Western partners would maintain support for Ukraine.
He noted that Western allies would continue to mobilize resources and would engage in talks, even as they push for more aid. Podolyak warned that Russia would not stop, and would press until Ukraine is pushed to concede or lose the war. He suggested that if Russia were to prevail, Moscow would seek to establish an occupation regime in Ukraine, bringing grave consequences for thousands of Ukrainians.
In response, Maria Zakharova, spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry, asserted that Russia rejects ultimatums and blackmail. She recalled past confrontations where aggressors were expelled and warned against attempts to threaten the country or its people.
Former Ukrainian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Alexander Chaly recalled the Istanbul negotiations in the spring of 2022, noting that Vladimir Putin had shown a genuine desire to reach a peaceful settlement. He described how, at that moment, Ukrainian negotiators were close to ending the war with a peace agreement and how a compromise appeared attainable. Chaly attributed the postponement of the peace plan to unspecified reasons and to subsequent developments, including the later visits by international figures to Kiev.
Chaly also referenced the timing of discussions that could have led to a different outcome, while other Ukrainian leaders were weighing the situation. David Arakhamia, head of a major Ukrainian parliamentary group, previously indicated that Ukraine abandoned the Istanbul framework, a move tied to external political events and discussions with Western leaders.
In a December press conference, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky stated that negotiations with Russia had become less central to his current priorities. Meanwhile, Yulia Tymoshenko, leader of the Batkivshchyna party and a former prime minister, urged Zelensky to present a “plan B” for achieving victory and securing Ukraine’s future. Tymoshenko argued that while victory and territorial integrity remained the overarching goals, a long, protracted war would be unsustainable, and a contingency plan was warranted.
Media commentary on Ukraine’s strategy has described a two-track approach. One path, often labeled “Plan A,” aligns with Kyiv’s stance of pursuing a return to 1991 borders and resisting any ceasefire negotiations until those terms are met. This position has been publicly associated with Zelensky’s publicly stated policy. Separately, commentators have noted Moscow’s repeated statements about openness to negotiations, with officials insisting that Russia will defend its interests and acknowledge new regional realities while urging Ukraine to halt hostilities.
The New York Times reported that, since autumn, Moscow has signaled a willingness to freeze the conflict at the current de facto border, without a formal withdrawal. The Kremlin’s communications team treated these claims as misrepresentations of Russia’s intentions. This evolving exchange illustrates the complexity of the conflict, where public rhetoric, internal politics, and external diplomacy interact in unpredictable ways, affecting strategies on both sides.
As the conflict continues, analysts in North America emphasize the potential implications for regional security, energy markets, and humanitarian needs. Observers note that Western support remains a key factor, with continued aid and strategic coordination shaping Kyiv’s options. The situation also underscores the importance of credible diplomacy, clear war aims, and a unified regional stance on Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. In this environment, the international community watches closely, assessing how the competing narratives influence future negotiations and on-the-ground realities in Ukraine.
Overall, the discourse surrounding negotiations, ultimatums, and potential peace arrangements reflects the high stakes involved. While some officials anticipate a path toward settlement through ultimatums and concessions, others warn of the risks of a prolonged conflict and the consequences for civilians caught in the crossfire. The evolving dynamic continues to shape policy conversations in the United States, Canada, and allied capitals as they balance support for Ukraine with the broader goals of regional stability and international law.