Zelensky's Associate on Negotiations: The Agreement Will Be Either Bad, or Very Bad, or There Will Be None

Photo: Video NV @newvoiceua

"We understand: all thinking people (although there are many who still believe that we should insist on some fantastic terms for an agreement) — it (the agreement) will be either bad, or very bad, or there will be none," he said at an event organized by NV publication, "Ukraine and the World Ahead 2026," which took place in Kyiv on Thursday.

Answering a question about the likelihood of concluding an agreement at this stage of negotiations, Arakhamia noted that given the current pressure from the Americans, although it is greater on Ukraine than on the Russian Federation, there is a chance. At the same time, without US participation, there will be no chance for an agreement — only a military path to resolving the problem will remain.

"In fact, one big question remains, or rather — two. We need security guarantees to have a one hundred percent guarantee that war will not come to us again. This has been the case since Istanbul: security guarantees are the number one issue Ukraine needs. And they need Donbas. And here we have a red line — we cannot give up our Donbas," the head of the "Servant of the People" faction described his vision of the situation.

In his opinion, even if politicians were found who would propose giving up Donbas, it would be impossible to implement. "It's impossible to even promote any laws, let alone vote for them. This is an impossible scenario from the point of view of implementation," he explained.

"Then the only way forward, if this single issue is not resolved, is to do something around Donbas, some hybrid models. But for this, the Russians need to be ready," Arakhamia noted, recalling the events of the late last century in the Balkans.

According to him, the Russians' rhetoric now is very simple — "black and white": "give up Donbas."

"The State Department is looking for historical precedents that existed for complex issues: Bosnia and Herzegovina after the collapse of Yugoslavia, and so on. People are looking for different options on how to peacefully find a format that will satisfy both sides. And for us, at the same time, it is important, while these discussions are ongoing, to persistently work on security guarantees," emphasized the head of the "Servant of the People" faction.

In his opinion, the analogue of NATO's Article 5 is weak, as it stipulates that in the event of military aggression, NATO countries must convene and hold consultations within 72 hours.

"Excuse me, but on February 24, within 72 hours, we almost lost the country. This does not satisfy us. Therefore, there must be specifics: how much weaponry, what kind of weaponry, what our army will be like, how it will be financed, what so-called deterrence packages we have — missiles and so on," Arakhamia explained.

"I hope that among such a thoughtful audience gathered in this hall today, there are no people who do not understand that no one will fight for Ukrainians in Ukraine with foreign soldiers, that only we ourselves can be our own guarantors, and we only need assistance and a strong army," added the head of the "Servant of the People" faction.

• 3
• 0
• 0
• 0
• 0
• 0
• 0
• 0