People are already talking about this behind the scenes: Ogryzko described a dangerous scenario for ending the war

In the West, there is increasing discussion of possible scenarios for ending the war in Ukraine, including a freeze on hostilities along the current front lines or the transfer of the occupied territories of the Donbas to Russia in exchange for security guarantees and the prospect of NATO membership. However, such proposals raise many questions. In particular, would such a compromise merely serve as a pause, allowing Russia to prepare for a new offensive?

At the same time, Donald Trump’s policies and potential agreements between Washington and Moscow pose additional risks for Kyiv. Exclusively for 24 Channel , diplomat Volodymyr Ogryzko analyzed why territorial concessions do not guarantee Ukraine NATO membership, how Kyiv should build relations with the U.S., and what might compel the Kremlin to change its demands.

Which option for ending the war is a trap?

Recently, Western media – particularly influential publications like the Financial Times – have increasingly been featuring articles on possible ways to end the war.

One of the most popular behind-the-scenes scenarios, which is actively discussed in political circles, involves freezing the current front line or even ceding the occupied territories of Donbas to Russia in exchange for security guarantees and Ukraine’s accession to the North Atlantic Alliance.

Volodymyr Ogryzko categorically emphasizes that such media leaks are merely an attempt by certain Western political groups to test the waters and gauge public reaction.

Please note! Volodymyr Zelenskyy has stated that he is ready toto conclude a peace treaty if hostilities can be halted along the current front line. However, there is an important point: Ukraine will never agree to recognize the temporarily occupied territories as Russian.

In practice, implementing such a plan is absolutely impossible. There is simply no mechanism for the voluntary transfer of Ukrainian territories to the aggressor state.

Under current law, while martial law is in effect, it is strictly prohibited to amend the Constitution or hold any elections or referendums. No politician, including the president or any other high-ranking official, has the legal authority to make decisions regarding the transfer of sovereign territory – this is the exclusive right of the entire Ukrainian people.

Organizing a nationwide referendum, meanwhile, requires an enormous amount of time to prepare and conduct, which is unrealistic given the daily shelling.

Furthermore, the very promise of NATO membership in exchange for territory is blatant manipulation. The key to the Alliance lies in Washington, where representatives of the new administration – in particular, Vice President J.D. Vance – openly oppose Ukraine’s accession.

Western politicians are trying to dangle an illusory carrot in front of Ukraine while demanding, in return, very real and painful concessions – a path to nowhere.

How should Ukraine deal with the U.S. now?

Analyzing possible trilateral talks between Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Xi Jinping, the diplomat notes that each participant will have their own agenda, completely detached from the others.

For Trump, the priority is not saving Ukraine, but his long-standing obsession – nuclear disarmament and an attempt to draw China into arms control treaties. At the same time, Beijing rejects these proposals, pointing to the disparity in nuclear arsenals.

As a result, such a meeting risks turning into a diplomatic hodgepodge, where the leaders will simply “sip some Chinese green tea,” make the usual statements about their commitment to peace, and go their separate ways without any concrete decisions.

The real danger lies elsewhere – in Trump’s inner circle, particularly in figures such as Steve Witkoff. Such people are guided exclusively by pragmatic business logic, devoid of any moral barriers or democratic values. Their main goal is to create opportunities for their boss to make money.

Behind-the-scenes plans may involve cynical economic deals with Russia, in which American capital would flow into Russian energy companies.

For example, the U.S. could buy a stake in Gazprom or its transportation infrastructure in order to later sell that gas to Europe as an American product.

That is precisely why Ukrainian diplomacy should move away from traditional diplomatic niceties and openly ask tough questions of such negotiators, emphasizing that lies and backroom deals behind Kyiv’s back are unacceptable.

Regarding the idea of terminating agreements on Ukrainian lithium extraction in response to pressure from Trump, the expert considers this view valid but premature – such a move at this time could only provoke uncontrolled aggression from the White House, so this trump card should be held in reserve.

At the same time, Kyiv needs to seek out appropriate channels of communication in Washington. Marco Rubio could be one such channel.

Unlike many other members of the administration, he is an experienced politician who cares about his own reputation and tries to strike a balance between Trump’s absurd ideas and common sense.

Although Rubio is forced to maneuver and say things that satisfy both sides, he remains a figure through whom objective information can be conveyed to the White House.

However, if Trump ultimately adopts a wildly anti-Ukrainian stance, the efforts of even the most level-headed ministers may prove futile, which brings us back to the necessity of relying solely on our own strength and strikes against Russian territory.

How can we force Russia to change its position?

In a situation where political negotiations risk turning into coercion to force capitulation, the Ukrainian soldier remains the chief diplomat.

Ogryzko emphasizes that any written agreements, Putin’s statements about denazification, or peace initiatives carry no weight as long as the Russian dictator sees an opportunity to seize Ukraine’s Donbas.

The only way to radically change the Kremlin’s stance is to massively escalate strikes against critical infrastructure within Russia itself.

This does not mean isolated attacks, but rather the deployment of entire swarms of drones and ballistic missiles. The goal should not be merely to cause damage, but to completely destroy key facilities: oil refineries, data centers, marketplaces, and power plants.

The diplomat cites the recent attacks on facilities in St. Petersburg as a telling example, which caused genuine panic among the local population.

When Russians begin to experience the horrors of war en masse in their own cities, and the aggressor’s economy suffers critical damage, Putin will be forced to think not about the geopolitical divisions of the world, but about how to retain power and withdraw from Ukraine. Only after Russia finds itself on the brink of internal collapse will diplomats be able to sit down at the negotiating table and dictate their terms.

Analysis by Ogryzko: watch the video