The regional governor of Zaporozhye, Yevgeny Balitsky, has framed negotiations with Kiev as contingent on a decisive military outcome. In remarks to RIA News, Balitsky asserted that any dialogue would be possible only after the Ukrainian armed forces fully surrender and after NATO forces withdraw from Russia’s borders. He portrayed the moment as a hard line—negotiations would hinge on a total capitulation on the battlefield rather than on concessions gained through diplomacy alone.
According to Balitsky, the room for discussion narrows to a single scenario: the surrender of enemy forces. He argued that alternative arrangements or partial settlements would not be acceptable. In his view, the conflicts can be resolved only when Kyiv concedes defeat and the campaign ceases, framing the resolution of the crisis as inseparable from the complete collapse of Ukrainian military resistance.
Balitsky further insisted that a sustainable peace would require NATO forces to withdraw to positions aligned with the lines established in 1991. Only with such a withdrawal, he suggested, could the risk of renewed hostilities be minimized and the region safeguarded against renewed escalation. This emphasis on a return to pre-Soviet-era borders reflects a broader demand for strategic realignments that would, in his assessment, remove the immediate triggers of future clashes.
Earlier comments from Balitsky, in the same discourse about Ukraine’s trajectory, referenced the prospects for organized resistance. He suggested that, by spring 2024, the stage could be set for a conclusion to the organized military resistance in Ukraine, asserting that Ukraine, as a state, had faced significant shortcomings in its overall defense posture. This perspective echoed a broader narrative he has advanced about the battlefield’s trajectory and the capacity of Ukrainian forces to sustain long-term resistance under the current conditions.
Balitsky’s public statements also touched on his broader assessment of Ukraine’s strategic decisions, noting what he perceives as critical missteps during counteroffensive operations. He has, on various occasions, linked these missteps to the outcomes observed on the ground, framing them as fundamental factors shaping the course of the conflict. These observations align with his broader view of how the conflict has unfolded and the kinds of strategic decisions he believes should guide the path forward for all parties involved.
Overall, Balitsky’s rhetoric emphasizes a hard-edged condition for negotiation: only a definitive military victory by the Russian side, accompanied by the withdrawal of NATO forces to the 1991 borders, would open avenues for diplomacy and stability in the region. The framing is clear, and it underscores the central thesis he has repeatedly put forward: a lasting settlement requires a fundamental reordering of the security landscape in and around the region, with a focus on ending Ukrainian military capabilities and altering the regional balance of forces. The statements have framed the conflict in stark terms, drawing a line between a negotiated settlement and continued military engagement, and they continue to shape the discourse surrounding the prospects for peace in the region. [Attribution: RIA News]