A political disaster or what Ukraine would be like if it agreed to Russia’s demands in Istanbul
28 January 15:19
During a meeting with representatives of the International Media Council, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that in 2022, Russia handed Ukraine a list of demands for negotiations. One of the conditions was to replace him with former OPFL MP Viktor Medvedchuk.
Zelenskyy emphasized that he did not meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Turkey and did not negotiate with him. However, at the very beginning of the full-scale war, he was handed a “document with ultimatums” from people who called themselves negotiators.
Russia’s main demands were as follows:
- the entire Donbas belongs to Russia and Ukraine must recognize this;
- recognize the Russian language;
- vote for constitutional amendments that would guarantee Ukraine’s neutral status;
- reduce the army to 50,000 people. Currently, the Armed Forces of Ukraine have 850,000 soldiers, the president noted;
- give away or destroy all weapons to Russia, including artillery with a range of more than 20 kilometers.
Russia’s ultimatum on the actual destruction of the Ukrainian army
Military analyst and retired colonel of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Roman Svitan in an exclusive commentary for
According to the analyst, Ukraine needs about 1 million military personnel to effectively conduct combat operations, of which 400-500 thousand should be directly involved in combat operations.
“If we reduce the size of the army to 50,000, it will no longer be an army, but its almost complete destruction,” Svitan explained.
If Ukraine agreed to such demands of Russia, it would lead to catastrophic consequences, according to Mr. Svitan. However, Svitan emphasized that there would be no quick takeover of Ukraine.
“To control the whole of Ukraine, Russia would need to have much more resources. For example, about half a million people would be needed for direct combat operations, and millions for full control of the territory,” he explained.
In the end, Roman Svitan noted that the only way Russia could ensure a quick occupation of Ukraine would be to change its political leadership. Thus, Russia’s ultimatum to reduce the size of the Ukrainian army to 50,000 troops was not only a demand, but also a strategy aimed at destroying Ukraine’s defense capabilities and its complete occupation.
Follow us on Telegram: the main news in a nutshell
“Yanukovych and Medvedchuk as temporary leaders”: a model of a puppet government
Political analyst Volodymyr Fesenko in a conversation with
“According to some sources, there was a scheme under which Yanukovych was to become interim president and Medvedchuk was to become prime minister,” the political scientist explained.
He noted that the presidential election was to be held under Russian control, and if Medvedchuk won the election, he would become the official leader of the country. Fesenko characterizes this plan as the creation of a “puppet government” controlled by Russia. According to him, such a model could be implemented only in the event of a complete military defeat of Ukraine.
“This option could only work if Russia captured Kyiv. Otherwise, it would not have been implemented,” the expert noted.
However, Volodymyr Fesenko emphasized that even if Kyiv was captured, such a scenario would not mean an end to the resistance on the part of Ukrainians.
“I cannot imagine that the Ukrainian leadership, whether it is Zelensky or someone else, would agree to such conditions. The Armed Forces of Ukraine and a significant part of society would continue to fight,” the political analyst said.
Fesenko suggested that if Russia were to implement such a plan, it could lead to the creation of a regime similar to that of Belarus, but with even greater control by the Kremlin.
Neutrality status for Ukraine is a threat to sovereignty and strategic course
Lawyer Igor Feshchenko in an exclusive commentary for
Follow us on Telegram: the main news in brief
For Ukraine, acquiring such a status is impossible without amending the Constitution, in particular, regarding the Euro-Atlantic course, which is directly enshrined in the basic law. This requires amendments to Articles 85, 102 and 116 of the Constitution, which state that the President of Ukraine is the guarantor of the course to join NATO, and the Parliament and Government implement this policy. This would be a major obstacle to the ratification of international treaties, especially those with a military focus.
“The Verkhovna Rada, as the only body that gives consent to international treaties, would not be able to ratify military agreements, and thus would be limited in its decision-making,” the lawyer added.
Feshchenko recalled the draft law “On State Neutrality of Ukraine” of November 23, 2007, introduced by MP Nestor Shufrych, which details the restrictions on a neutral state. In particular, he noted that Ukraine, in its neutral status, could not sign international military treaties, refuse to host foreign military bases on its territory, and would not be able to transfer weapons to warring parties or provide state loans for warfare.
Follow us on Telegram: the main news in brief
Feshchenko believes that becoming a neutral state would mean a significant strategic and economic setback for Ukraine.
“The status of neutrality would set Ukraine back several decades in development. It would actually mean becoming dependent on Russia and abandoning European partners,” he emphasized.
According to him, neutrality would have closed the way to Europe for Ukraine, and investments, which are important for economic growth, would have stopped. Moreover, the country would find itself in an uncertain state, where no path would lead to true independence. In addition, neutrality could only be the beginning of further annexations of Ukrainian territories.
“Neutrality would be a threat to Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence, so I believe that such proposals should be rejected,” the lawyer concluded.
Demilitarization of Ukraine and its transformation into vassalage
Military analyst Dmytro Snegirev specially for
“Such requirements would actually mean the demilitarization of Ukraine and the inability to adequately respond to external threats,” the analyst noted.
Snegiryov emphasized that Russia’s goal is not only to control certain territories, such as Luhansk or Donetsk regions, but the main task of Russia is to destroy Ukrainian statehood or turn Ukraine into a Russian vassalage. Russia would seek to create a situation in which Ukraine would formally retain the attributes of statehood, but would be completely subordinated to the Kremlin.
Follow us on Telegram: the main news in a nutshell
According to Snegiryov, if Russia succeeded in implementing its demands, the next step would be to restore the so-called “Novorossiya,” which would include new territorial claims to Ukraine.
“This would mean the seizure of the territories of Odesa, Mykolaiv, Kherson, Dnipro regions, as well as Zaporizhzhia. Ukraine would be conditionally divided into two parts,” the analyst explained.
He also noted that Russia could put forward territorial claims not only to Ukraine, but also to other neighboring countries, such as Poland, Romania, or Hungary.
According to the expert, it was important for Russia not only to annex certain Ukrainian territories, but also to completely destroy Ukrainian identity and political independence. In general, according to Snegiryov, fulfillment of Russia’s ultimatums could lead to serious political and military consequences for Ukraine. This scenario would mean not only the loss of defense capability, but also the transformation of the country into a vassalage of Russia, where all decisions would be determined by the Kremlin.
Consequently, the consequences of fulfilling Russia’s ultimatum would mean a catastrophic loss of Ukraine’s defense capability and sovereignty. If Ukraine were to agree to the Kremlin’s demands, it would lead to complete demilitarization and the country’s transformation into a vassal state of Russia, with all the negative consequences for its independence and European integration.
