Earlier, a representative of the President of the United States, Donald Trump, in Ukraine hinted that both sides would need to make concessions to end the war, which could involve Kyiv giving up land occupied by Russia. Kit Kellogg told Fox News that "both sides will give up a little." What such concessions might entail, the fate of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, and whether evil will be truly punished - this is what UNIAN discussed with Igor Reiterovich, a candidate of political sciences and political scientist.

What will happen with Kursk? Will we simply withdraw from there, or will Russia give up some of our territory in exchange for it? After all, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Oleksandr Syrskyi, stated that among our priorities is the operation in the Kursk region. Against the backdrop of discussions about possible negotiations, it seems that this is indeed a tempting piece for us that could be utilized. And for Russia, Kursk is valuable. So what price are they willing to pay for it? Could it be that Moscow considers such a potential price exorbitant?

It is difficult to say at this point, as different scenarios could unfold. However, it is clear that for us, this is indeed a certain tool of influence on the Russian Federation.

According to the plans we have seen, which have been leaked to the media but are not officially confirmed, there seems to be a kind of exchange happening. That is, Ukraine makes a goodwill gesture - withdraws from the Kursk region, and the Russians leave several other areas of Ukraine.

For example, I've heard about Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. They are essentially doing this to regain control over their so-called historical territory.

However, for this plan to be realized, control over the Kursk region must be maintained until negotiations to cease active hostilities begin.

Otherwise, it would make no sense if, for example, Russia tries to remove our troops from that territory and then claims that "we have nothing to exchange," making the exchange impossible because you simply have nothing to offer us.

Therefore, in this context, we should probably watch how the situation develops. If control over this territory is maintained by that time, then various options may arise regarding what and how it can be exchanged.

You mentioned the Zaporizhzhia region: does the fate of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant fall within these possible territorial concessions? Will it remain with the occupiers or return home?

We do not know about this. You see, the essence of the matter is that we are currently discussing very hypothetical things. New information is starting to emerge, which is unconfirmed, that Ukraine offered gas transit in exchange for the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. But how much trust can be placed in this is still an open question.

I believe that logically, of course, the nuclear power plant should be returned to Ukraine. Because this concerns radiation safety and nuclear security. It is clear that this is important for us from an economic standpoint.

Based on such principles, certainly, at the very least, the entire territory and the entire nuclear power plant should return under Ukraine's control.

But whether Russia would agree to this - again, that is a rhetorical question. It all depends on what kind of pressure tools we have and what pressure tools the United States have. In other words, how they will compel Russia to accept such terms.

What fate awaits the land corridor to Crimea in the event of reaching some peace agreement? It effectively exists now. Is there a chance that Mariupol will be Ukrainian?

If we consider various scenarios, under a very optimistic scenario, this corridor may not exist.

But I fear that the situation with Mariupol, at least under the current conditions, is certainly not positive for Ukraine.

Russia is already trying to promote the narrative that there are at least two regions - Donetsk and Luhansk - that must definitely be under the control of the Russian Federation. Now, which region does Mariupol belong to? You see, that’s the question?

There is a manipulation of geographical boundaries and geographical terms occurring here. But Russia has been preparing the ground for this manipulation for a long time. Therefore, it may be that parts of the territories of the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions will indeed be returned, but within the boundaries of the Donetsk region, Russia will stand firm and demand concessions from the United States and other countries, including Ukraine, on this issue.

We are not talking about the official recognition of the annexation of these territories to Russia. No. This will not happen under any circumstances. But in the context of actual control, this is likely how it will play out.

How will Ukrainian society react to a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia? Are Ukrainians ready for a compromise, which inherently always means some concessions? Are people willing to sacrifice, so to speak, to the last? And where is that last line?

If we look at the results of surveys available today, a significant portion of Ukrainians are ready for an end to hostilities. They fundamentally understand that this will not be a super optimistic scenario for Ukraine.

However, they are willing to agree to it in exchange for certain security guarantees for our state. That is, that a large-scale war from Russia will not be repeated in the future.

The question here is simply what the conditions of the ceasefire will be - that’s one thing, and secondly - what real security guarantees Ukraine will receive. If they are sufficient and genuinely meet our national interests, then the overwhelming majority will support this idea.

However, a certain pain will certainly remain. It won’t just disappear. But it will be acknowledged as the lesser evil. That this is better than continuing with unclear prospects.

Will Putin's word in negotiations have any value? And if so, who will ensure its real worth: Russian elites, Western peacekeepers, oil prices, or some statements from Trump?

I think the key point here is the guarantees that Ukraine will receive, rather than some word from Putin or some signature on some document.

Additionally, there may be extra guarantees from the U.S. in the form of bilateral treaties with us. The position of China, which could also act as a third party in these negotiations and affirm their implementation with its presence.

I do not think that China will take on direct responsibility as a guarantor of compliance. But as a present party, it could be there.

So, it all comes down not so much to words or promises but to the real guarantees that will, in fact, be proposed, considered, and, let’s hope, approved.

If we talk about negotiations, what needs to happen to prevent the war from starting again after Trump's term ends - in four years?

Two points. The first point is Ukraine's accession to NATO. The second scenario is less optimistic for us, but possible - peacekeepers.

In addition to this, real agreements ratified in the U.S. parliament and some other European countries, maintaining the full format of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, continuing military, technical, political, economic, financial support, and so on.

These would be sufficient guarantees to firmly establish this. All other options would likely only postpone the war rather than end it permanently.

What does Putin need from the negotiations? A break to churn out tanks and rockets and attack again? Or will Russia, thanks to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, be incapable for several decades, for example, and will be licking its wounds?

It all depends on the conditions under which it will be signed. Putin can, in any case, considering the propaganda apparatus he has in the country, present all of this as an unconditional victory for the Russian Federation.

Whether he will want to move forward will depend on how the agreement is concluded and under what conditions. If there are real guarantees for Ukraine and the preservation of the Armed Forces, he simply won’t have that opportunity. Because he will understand that he will have to deal with Ukraine in any case.

If, for example, this agreement is maximally beneficial for him and does not significantly impact Ukraine positively, Europe will then face a larger war in the future.

Can evil go unpunished? If we sum up the war and discussions about a possible Trump plan under which Crimea remains Russian, does this not imply encouragement of evil, in a broader sense, for further actions? And why does a strong Trump fear Putin's defeat?

Trump, like Biden, like all other world leaders, fears the nuclear weapons that Russia possesses. And they fear a certain unpredictability from Putin. Therefore, we must sadly acknowledge that at least for a certain period, evil will not be punished as it should be.

And perhaps there will be hopes that in the future this situation can somehow be corrected, changed, and the guilty held accountable. But now, this will likely be a very painful compromise. And this compromise will leave at least part of the Russian power as it is now.

справкаИгорь РейтеровичIgor ReiterovichCandidate of Political Sciences, Political Scientist

Igor Reiterovich is a political scientist who has dedicated himself to teaching and