Revealed: Ukraine's red lines for any peace deal with Putin
After three years of war, the world is waiting to see if the 30-day plan accepted by Volodymyr Zelensky on Tuesday will find common ground with Vladimir Putin.
High-level Ukrainian sources briefed on the ongoing talks are warning there is little trust that Russia will accept a reasonable deal, adding: 'We expect another trick.'
Despite Donald Trump describing 'good and productive' talks with Russia on Friday, Putin has been accused of using delaying tactics by raising 'nuances' and further questions as well as suggesting that Ukraine would not be permitted to rearm, mobilise or receive Western military aid during the truce.
But Ukraine is understood to be clear on several key areas of negotiation if the war is to stop. They include:
No further territory to be ceded, despite Putin's desire to take four Ukrainian regions partially occupied by the Russian military since 2014
The return of thousands of Ukrainian children abducted by Russia
The return of thousands of civilians illegally held by Russia, who are not considered Prisoners of War and so would not be included in PoW exchanges
A need for international security guarantees, should Putin infringe any ceasefire deal
Ukrainian officials are concerned that Russia's stalling is nothing more than a 'game from their side'.
'We are really willing to make peace, but we need a long-lasting peace, not a short ceasefire. We do not want our children fighting this battle,' said the senior source, who cannot be named as they are not permitted to speak to the media.
'Putin is playing games. We have made a strong move – now it is his turn.
'We have proved we are reasonable; we are willing to have peace – if Russia doesn't agree, the whole world will see they are liars.'
One key point of contention is the return of tens of thousands of children, whom Ukraine says have been abducted to Russia as part of an effort to erase the country's identity.
Kyiv claims that it knows of at least 20,000 children that have been taken to Russia or Russian-occupied territory without the consent of family or guardians since the war began, calling the abductions a war crime that meets the UN treaty definition of genocide.
Another issue is Putin's demands that in any deal, Ukraine cede the entirety of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk which have been partially occupied by Russian military since 2014.
In the months after the full-scale 2022 invasion, Moscow 'annexed' these regions by holding referendums in the areas they occupied, which were widely dismissed by the international community as illegal and coerced.
The US secretary of state Marco Rubio said there had been talk of territorial concessions in the negotiations with Ukraine this week and has previously said Kyiv must expect to give up land.
Ukrainian officials told The Independent they had come to terms with the current battle lines freezing, with Russia holding on to some territory for now for a ceasefire to work, but ceding any additional territory would be a red line.
'It is not reasonable to demand that, for example, Zaporizhzhia or Kherson be fully handed over – that sounds like a f*** off to us.'
They said fate of these territories held by Russia since the invasion in February 2022 was not sealed.
'We will do our best to retake it with diplomacy.'
At his news conference on Thursday, Putin said Russia supported the idea of a ceasefire, but with the caveat that it should lead to long-term peace and eliminate the root causes of the conflict.
He also suggested there were a number of 'nuances', including in Kursk, where a truce would be 'very good' for the Ukrainian side.
The Kremlin later said Putin was 'cautiously optimistic' after holding late-night talks in Moscow with Steve Witkoff, Trump's envoy, on the US proposal.
Mykhailo Podolyak, a senior adviser to Mr Zelensky, echoed the distrust of Putin, saying his words looked like a 'direct desire to continue the war'.
He said it effectively forced Ukraine to 'give up its weapons, army, mobilisation, and supplies of equipment, and simply silently watch as [Russians] continue to 'peacefully' fire along the entire front line…'
President Zelensky said on Friday that while he saw a good chance to end the war with Russia, he feared Putin would try to drag the ceasefire proposal into endless discussions. He urged the US and Ukraine's other allies to apply pressure on Russia.
On Friday, the G7 nations, including the UK, warned Moscow to follow Kyiv in agreeing to the US-proposed 30-day ceasefire or face further sanctions, according to a draft statement.
Mr Trump again pressed Russia to sign and complete "a ceasefire and final agreement", saying on his private social media platform on Friday that he would extract the U.S. from what he called a "real 'mess' with Russia".
In Ukraine, there are deep concerns about the impact of a ceasefire and freezing of lines on the fate of tens of thousands of Ukrainian children, who they say have either been forcibly taken to Russia or swallowed up into occupied territories during the full-scale invasion.
One of the key demands for the deal is that these children be retrieved and that the policies of 'Russification' – including forced passport adoption and re-education camps – be stopped.
The UK Ministry of Defence said this week that Russia has issued 3.5 million passports to Ukrainians living in illegally Russian-occupied territory, leaving them at risk of conscription into its army.
'While Ukraine fights for survival, Russia is building its army not just with soldiers, but with stolen children,' said Mykola Kuleba from Save Ukraine, an organisation that has managed to locate and retrieve over 600 children since the start of the full-scale invasion, including three teenagers in the last week.
'Over the past 11 years, 1.6 million Ukrainian children have been trapped in Russian-occupied territories. Many have been forcibly taken to Russia. They are indoctrinated in new schools. Their Ukrainian identity is erased, and their minds are filled with hatred for us, the West, the US, and its allies.'
Ukrainian civil society is also concerned about Ukrainian PoWs and civilians held in Russian detention centres.
The Centre for Civil Liberties, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2022 for its work, said since the full-scale invasion they know of at least 8,000 civilians in 70 different Russian detention centres in occupied territories and Russia itself.
'The release of civilians should be without conditions as part of the agreement,' said Vyacheslav Likhachev, from the centre, adding that the truce was one of the only chances to retrieve people.
'For more than three years, nothing has been really effective in making Russia release civilians or act in line with international humanitarian law. No sanctions should be lifted without the release of civilians.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
4 hours ago
- The National
What to expect from The National's mini-series on the UK's defence strategy
But what is behind this sudden push for more defence spending? On Monday, The National is set to publish a three-piece investigation looking into the issues that Starmer's review have raised. Our team of political reporters has worked together to produce the mini-series. READ OUR FULL DEFENCE MINI-SERIES: Steph Brawn spoke to Mark Seddon, who was a speechwriter and adviser to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, and Professor Julian Richards, who worked for GCHQ for nearly 20 years. Former Labour member Seddon said he is 'unconvinced' by Starmer's plan, and that it will make the UK more insecure. On the promise of a jobs boost, James Walker spoke to James Meadway, host of the podcast Macronomics, who said that while there may be some jobs created, it likely won't be many. And, Abbi Garton-Crosbie and Hamish Morrison look at the big picture – why does the UK Government want us to feel as if war is on the horizon? Could it be less about jobs and more about posturing? And how big of an influence has US President Donald Trump been on this new position? Read our series to find out, and make sure you're subscribed so you don't miss out.
The National
4 hours ago
- The National
Labour defence spending 'one of most inefficient ways' to create jobs
It comes as the UK Government has gone all in on the idea of growth through military spending. It was one of the key tenets of the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) – which was published in June and accepted in its entirety by Labour. 'The SDR will help make defence an engine for growth—boosting prosperity, jobs and security for working people across the UK,' the document read. READ MORE: Keir Starmer's defence plan will not make UK safer, says ex-UN adviser Keir Starmer quickly announced the [[UK Government]] would open six new munitions factories, build up to 12 new nuclear-powered submarines and invest £15 billion in nuclear warheads – as well as a raft of other commitments. 'Through this strategy we will bring the whole of society with us, creating jobs, growth and wages for working people,' the Prime Minister said. In Scotland, meanwhile, Ian Murray launched a £250 million investment at the base housing the UK's nuclear weapons – HMNB Clyde at Faslane – in July, to be spent over the next three years to improve infrastructure at the site. The Scottish Secretary described the spending as a 'defence dividend' as he also talked up the economic impact of investing in the sector in Scotland, including through the Clyde 2070 programme, which will see billions pumped into the industry in the coming decades. But the extent to which this investment will positively impact Scotland and create jobs across the UK is a matter of debate. It's not that jobs won't be created, James Meadway – who is the host of the podcast Macronomics – told The National. Defence minister John Healey 'Look. If the government spends a bit more money on something in the real world, it will – other things being equal – mean that there is more economic activity,' the economist, who is also a member of the Progressive Economy Forum and a former economic adviser to the shadow chancellor, said. 'There'll be a bit more growth somewhere, there'll be a few more jobs somewhere. That's kind of what's going to happen.' He added: 'The trouble is it's just not very many for the obvious reason that if you look at military investment now and the kind of things that arms companies are producing – this is all really high tech stuff,' he said. 'This is not just churning out millions of shells or bullets. This is stuff that you use a great deal of high technology to produce, and that is also quite high technology. And if you are producing millions of shells, it's also now very capital intensive, rather than labour intensive, due to big machines making them.' Meadway added: 'And if you've got lots of high-tech stuff, like you're making drones and you're making quite sophisticated drones. It's capital intensive. You don't have many people employed doing it. You don't actually create many jobs and investment. 'So, as a starting point, if the Government is saying military spending, ramping up defence production will create more jobs, this is a bad way to do that.' He went on: 'The stuff that really creates jobs, it's actually probably fairly obvious. If you go to the NHS and you put more money into that, that means you're pretty immediately going to employ more nurses, more doctors, more people to your hospitals – all sorts of people working in a pretty labour-intensive healthcare occupation. 'Same thing goes for social care, same thing goes for education, to a significant extent. If you spend more on schools, you're going to need to employ more teachers. So, these things create lots of jobs. Military spending does not create lots of jobs.' Mark Seddon, a professor of economic history at Sheffield University and the director of the Centre for United Nations Studies, also suggested that defence spending was an inefficient way of creating jobs. READ MORE: 'Building new royal naval craft, ships and submarines at Govan or Barrow-in-Furness, that's got to be a good thing. I'm all in favour of keeping skilled jobs and expanding them in key sectors like that,' he said. 'But I'm not persuaded by this substantial increase in defence spending that it's going to actually result in a lot of jobs in Britain.' Seddon added: 'It's not just the [[UK Government]], but the EU – which to my mind is becoming synonymous with NATO – seem to have a policy, which is increasing military spending in an effort to save their economy. "I don't think it will, I think it makes life a lot easier for the extreme-right politically, and I don't think it's going to bring jobs in any large numbers into the industrial areas.'
The National
4 hours ago
- The National
Keir Starmer's defence plan will not make UK safer, warns ex-UN adviser
Over the past few months, the Prime Minister has been consistently turning up the dial on defence spending while confirming cuts to foreign aid as part of a 'blueprint' to make Britain 'safer and stronger'. But Mark Seddon, who was a speechwriter and adviser to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, said he is 'unconvinced' by Starmer's plan, insisting the idea that spending more on weapons factories was going to make us more secure and save the economy is 'for the birds'. READ OUR FULL DEFENCE MINI-SERIES: Professor Julian Richards, who worked for GCHQ for nearly 20 years, also said Starmer's approach was all about political 'signalling', when in fact it is 'impossible' to say whether upping defence spending would enhance the UK's security. Having already pledged to increase defence spending to 2.5% of national income by 2027 through a cut to foreign aid in February, the Prime Minister then promised in June to make Britain 'battle-ready' as he unveiled a defence review designed to counter threats from countries such as Russia. Speaking at the BAE Systems shipyard in Glasgow, he promised to spend billions more on weapons factories, drones and submarines, even if it meant raiding the welfare or aid budget once more. READ MORE: Labour defence spending 'one of most inefficient ways' to create jobs Later that month, the UK and its Nato allies agreed to increase spending on defence and related areas to 5% of GDP by 2035. Starmer said his defence review was a 'blueprint for making Britain safer and stronger' and would create an 'armour-clad nation'. But former Labour member Seddon, who also advised María Fernanda Espinosa when she was president of the UN General Assembly, said: 'I think this has been a crisis management government and I think that it has sought to find a solace in defence spending as some kind of Keynesian demand-driven recovery plan, [suggesting] this is how we get back British industry. 'It's moved very firmly away from traditional Keynesian economic policies to believe that militarisation can do all of this and get the industrial jobs that were lost back. 'I'm really not convinced. 'We've already announced that a lot of the weapons we're going to be buying are from the US. We simply don't have the capacity to build things like we used to, like Harrier jump jets, we now have to buy F-35s from the US. 'We're promising to increase defence spending eventually to 5% which is a very substantial increase, and that can only mean major cuts in education, health spending, welfare spending, right across the board. That isn't really being debated in any serious way, it seems to me.' He added: 'I think they [Labour] are making us more insecure. 'The idea that spending more on munitions factories is going to save the British economy and make us safer is for the birds.' Richards (below), who now works as the director of the Centre for Security and Intelligence at Buckingham University, said he felt Starmer's claim of making Britain safer was an 'impossible calculation'. (Image: Supplied) He told The National: 'To a certain extent, measuring the effect of defence expenditure, and indeed the effect of foreign aid expenditure, is a virtually impossible thing to do if your metric is our safety. 'It's difficult to say for each pound you spend on defence capability how much safety does that delivers us. I'd suggest it's a totally impossible calculation. The same goes for foreign aid expenditure because that's always been a difficult area to quantify in terms of its effect. 'I challenge anyone to say that what the Labour Party are doing makes us safer or not.' He went on: 'It's very political. It's about signalling. 'They're trying to shape the Russian mindset by saying we're prepared to do something that would have been politically impossible a short while ago. 'Starmer wants to be right at the helm of that robust signalling to Russia, so then he can quote himself as one of the leaders of the West.' The boost to defence spending has come about amid a pledged reduction of the foreign aid budget from 2027 to 0.3% of gross national income – the lowest level in more than a quarter of a century. (Image: PA) Richards said he felt the UK Government had made this decision because of pressure from the US, which has cancelled most US Agency for International Development (USAID) programmes. European Nato members have also come under pressure from the US to spend more on defence, as Richards explained, America has for many years felt it has been 'shouldering too much of the burden'. However, Richards said he hoped the current approach by the UK Government would be temporary. READ MORE: Labour defence spending 'one of most inefficient ways' to create jobs 'One would hope what we're doing at the moment is not permanent,' he said. 'We would hope that if in five or six years, the security situation is more stable, it may be the case [that] we could shuffle back to where we were and put a break on defence expenditure and put more back into foreign aid.' Asked if this would be the last cut to foreign aid that we see from Labour, he said: 'I certainly wouldn't bet on it being the last. '[But] I would hope that further cuts to the foreign aid budget would be politically more difficult than this first ripping off of the plaster. If it turns out this was just the beginning of a series of death by a thousand cuts, that could start to become politically very difficult.' Starmer once lamented a Tory plan in 2021 to slash the UK's aid budget to 0.5% of GNI, adding that investing in international aid was in Britain's 'national interest'. But Seddon, who sat on Labour's national executive committee for nearly a decade, said it was yet another area of policy where Starmer seemed happy to U-turn in the name of the 'practicalities of office'. In 2015, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was adopted by all UN member states with 17 sustainable development goals at its heart, including zero hunger, clean water and sanitation and climate action. Seddon, who was a Labour member for 45 years and was on the party's national executive committee for nearly a decade, said Labour seemed to be 'rowing back' on this commitment, adding that 'tinkering' with foreign aid can have huge consequences. 'Foreign aid is not something to be tinkered with or got rid of altogether, it has major repercussions, whether it's HIV programmes, drought, poverty, all of these things,' Seddon, who quit Labour after 45 years of membership two years ago, said. He added: 'Britain was a founding member of the UN and are supporters of the sustainable development goals we're supposed to be getting to by 2030, to make the world a safer, better place. And we seem to be rowing back from all of that. 'I think what a lot of people find difficult to believe is this is from a Labour Party leader and Labour government. If you'd said to me, 'Can you imagine any political party cutting or getting rid of foreign aid?', I would never have said it would be the Labour Party.' A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: 'Britain is entering a new era of warfighting readiness, driven by the biggest sustained boost in defence spending since the Cold War – rising to 2.6% of GDP by 2027, with an ambition of hitting 3% in the next Parliament. 'This government is not only strengthening national security but turning defence into a driver of economic growth, delivering on the Plan for Change. "The Strategic Defence Review lays out major investment in UK defence industries - backing British manufacturing, innovation, and jobs, ensuring prosperity and security across every nation and region. The forthcoming Defence Industrial Strategy will build on these commitments.' The FCDO has been approached for comment.
