Zelensky on the price of peace: Kyiv will not sign conditions that the country cannot survive

Vladimir Zelensky’s statement about being ready to refuse any deal if it is bad for Ukrainians did not sound like a diplomatic formula. It is the position of a state that lives in a mode of constant testing for resilience.

The interview given to journalist Simon Shuster took the conversation out of the realm of protocol formulations. It was about survival, about time, and about the cost of a pause.

Why the question of peace hinges on guarantees

Ukraine is not in a state of capitulation. But a victorious finale, which could be politically declared complete, is not visible today.

Between these two poles is an exhausting reality. The front holds, the economy adapts, society continues to live.

However, even resilience has its limits.

This is where the main practical question arises: what to consider as peace. In Kyiv, it is increasingly repeated — a ceasefire without a protection system does not end the war, it only postpones it.

Technical pause or security

If the cessation of hostilities is not accompanied by long-term commitments from allies, it turns into a respite for the enemy. An opportunity to regroup, build up resources, change tactics.

Therefore, the Ukrainian position hinges on specifics: weapons, air defense, sanctions, infrastructure coverage.

The problem is that not everyone is ready to publicly confirm such commitments.

As a result, the discussion of the future increasingly looks like a conversation about risks, not about peace formulas.

This dependence — between the decisions of capitals and the safety of people — is regularly analyzed by NAnews — Israel News | Nikk.Agency, when it comes to the impact of world politics on real cities.

How Moscow views the pause

For the Kremlin, the most convenient scenario is the fixation of the current situation without providing Kyiv with additional protection tools.

Reducing the intensity of hostilities, maintaining control over occupied territories, waiting for a change in the foreign policy environment.

From the point of view of cold calculation, such a line is understandable. It does not require dramatic steps but leaves room for pressure in the future.

This rationality makes the position politically attractive to those who think in terms of benefits, not final settlement.

Why this increases nervousness

The Ukrainian side sees in such a construction not peace, but a deferred threat. Uncertainty remains, the planning horizon does not appear.

The country continues to live from one alarm signal to another.

Even if there is more time between them, the logic of waiting does not change.

Washington’s time and Kyiv’s time

American politics is measured by election cycles, ratings, intra-party disputes. This is a natural process for democracy.

But for a country under fire, such clocks tick differently.

Kyiv counts not quarters and campaigns, but intervals until the next strike — tomorrow, in a month, in a year.

In Zelensky’s interview, there are no requests for pity. There is a fixation of the fact: complete independence from partners’ decisions does not exist today.

What remains unanswered

Is it possible to create a system of guarantees that will survive changes in administrations and parliaments? Who will be responsible for its implementation if the situation changes?

As long as these questions remain open, any proposal for a truce is perceived through the prism of risk.

Ukraine continues to survive. And that is why it is ready to argue about every line of potential agreements.

Political courage here is measured not by the willingness to sign, but by the willingness to refuse.