The President's Office holds dual views on peace talks with Russia, and the reason is quite simple.

Advisor to President Volodymyr Zelensky, Dmytro Lytvyn, on October 10denied that Ukraine is ready for negotiations under a scenario that involves territorial concessions in exchange for security guarantees from the US and NATO. This was previously reported by the Italian newspaper Corriere Della Sera – and it wasn't the first such leak in Western media. If this is untrue, where did the information come from? The Informant has a straightforward answer.

Are Western media lying despite their authority?

The peace plan, which mentions accelerated EU membership alongside territorial concessions, has been reported not only by Corriere Della Sera. Other reputable media outlets have referenced it:

• Forbes disclosed information that Zelensky will be forced to concede territories, but this could lead to a risk of a coup involving radical forces.
• Financial Times published a piece stating that the new Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha allegedly discussed with Western colleagues in the US the possibility of negotiations over "land for security" (this was later denied by Foreign Ministry spokesperson Heorhiy Tykhyi).
• FT wrote that Kyiv and Washington are forced to consider a negotiation plan involving territorial concessions to Moscow. They also mentioned that occupied lands could be returned through diplomatic means.
• Spanish El País stated that Ukraine's Western allies are increasingly pressuring Kyiv to engage in negotiations.

It is hard to assume that Western media are spreading fabrications, given their authority. Their credibility is, for instance, higher than the already tarnished reputation of Dmytro Lytvyn, who was accused of pressure by “Ukrainska Pravda” .

It is not the first time that statements from Western media and politicians have been labeled as lies by the Office of the President. This occurred before February 24, 2022, when Ukrainian authorities publicly denied Russia's preparations for a large-scale attack – including Zelensky himself who referred to it as “rumors around the entrance.”

Negotiations without land return – this was also stated by Zelensky

In July 2024, Zelensky made controversial statements regarding readiness for peace without returning territories:

“This does not mean that at this moment (the start of negotiations with the Russian Federation, particularly during the second Peace Summit – ed.) we will be at the borders of 1991. This is my answer to your question. No, it does not mean that,” the president said in an interview with Le Monde, AFP, L'Equipe, and Libération.

Thus, such a development is considered within the president's team. The question remains whether it is a priority.

Because there is also an opposing view in Western media that Kyiv does not intend to concede anything to the Kremlin – including territories. Almost simultaneously with the Italian Corriere, this was also reported by the Spanish El Mundo.

So why are there diametrically opposed reports? The answer is simple – both plans are valid.

The first one involves the unconditional restoration of justice after the war. The second – the “victory plan” – is about a swift cessation of hostilities, closing the skies, allowing strikes deep into Russia with Western weapons, and guarantees of NATO membership. Zelensky anticipates that thanks to these “bonuses,” which will create a strong position, some of the occupied territories can be returned during negotiations with Russia. Some, but it is clear that not all:

“Diplomatic solutions are good if you are strong. Otherwise, Putin won't even participate in it.”

Who are these plans aimed at?

Instead of asking why there are two plans, it is better to explain who these plans are aimed at. This is best understood from the various motives of Ukraine's allies.

As is known, one of these allies is undoubtedly the Democratic Party of the USA. They see an existential threat in Russian aggression towards Ukraine for Americans.

If we lost, the USA would cease to be a guarantor of security in the world, they would not be taken into account, and others could carry out genocides, nuclear wars even in Europe.

This idea is not abstract. After World War II, the USA built the largest and most effective naval fleet and took on the security of global maritime navigation. Thus, they fight against pirates, Houthis, Iran, help Israel, and counter China.

This allows the USA and Britain to control maritime trade and forces the world to play by their rules. Maritime transport is the cheapest among all others, so whoever controls it controls the global market and sets the rules of the game. But this is only as long as the USA can handle instability and conflicts in various corners of the world.

If they prove incapable, the US monopoly will collapse – and there will be a threat of America's decline. This means that the Democrats cannot allow Putin to win, especially territorially. In other words, they are unlikely to be interested in scenarios where Ukraine concedes its lands – and the war ends there. Because this would send a signal to China that it can attack Taiwan, threatening with nuclear weapons. And dealing with China will be much more complicated than with Russia.

It is likely that the Democratic Party is counting on formula No. 1, i.e., Zelensky's Peace Formula. It implies that Ukraine will resist until justice is restored. This could take potentially decades.

This is entirely acceptable to Biden or his successor's team. Continuation of the war will demonstrate that Putin started it in vain. He will get bogged down in fighting, debts, and growing problems in the economy and society. At the same time, he will be unable to win the war or stop it.

Plan No. 2, i.e., the victory plan, is likely aimed at Ukraine's European partners. Look: Zelensky presented it to Biden, who read it but did not approve it. Biden even postponed a visit to Scholz and participation in Ramstein. However, Zelensky still went to Europe. His meetings with European politicians began on October 10.

This indicates European interest. Of course, Europe does not want a prolonged nightmare directly on the continent, increased defense spending, and the risk of falling into an economic abyss due to refugees, trade restrictions, etc.

Politicians like Emmanuel Macron, Olaf Scholz, and probably Keir Starmer, whom Zelensky met or plans to meet, are interested in establishing peace even through concessions. Moreover, they are also interested in minimizing those concessions. Thus, they likely expected Biden in Europe to persuade him to support plan No. 2.

There is also a suggestion that this plan No. 2 could appeal to Russia. At least for Russia, it looks much better than plan No. 1. Additionally, this plan allows Putin to exit an unsuccessful war while saving face – just as Macron suggested in 2022.

Regarding the Republican Party of the USA and Trump personally, it seems that he would support plan No. 2 if he understands that this plan can work. Because Trump is interested in quick and effective solutions regarding the war, having repeatedly made statements about ending it during his election campaign.

Ultimately, this plan suits Ukraine because de jure it does not renounce territories. They will be recognized as occupied. Thus, they can be returned at any favorable opportunity. And to strengthen positions during negotiations, the Ukrainian military has begun operations in the Kursk region of Russia – all part of