Kuleba says proposed 2022 terms would have amounted to Ukraine’s capitulation
Ukraine’s former foreign minister questions whether Russia wants an agreement and says the military restrictions discussed in 2022 would have undermined Ukrainian sovereignty.
By Lorenzo Evans ·
Former Ukrainian foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba has rejected the suggestion that Ukraine missed an acceptable opportunity to end the war through negotiations in 2022, describing the terms discussed at the time as a form of capitulation. In an interview with Ukrainska Pravda, he also expressed doubt that Russia genuinely wants an agreement in the latest diplomatic effort initiated by US President Donald Trump.
Kuleba, who led Ukraine’s foreign ministry for more than four years, acknowledged that he did not know every detail of the earlier talks. But he said the negotiations that began on the Belarusian track and later moved to Istanbul included demands to restrict Ukraine’s armed forces. According to his account, Russia proposed a force of 50,000 personnel, while Ukraine put forward 250,000, its legally established peacetime strength at the time.
He argued that allowing another country to determine the size of Ukraine’s military would itself compromise Ukrainian independence. He also said the proposed arrangements required missiles and long-range weapons to be placed in storage with access granted to Russian forces. Kuleba drew parallels between those discussions and demands he now hears concerning Ukraine’s NATO aspirations, military limits and the lifting of sanctions.
Turning to the current negotiations, Kuleba said Putin could be using diplomacy to obtain concessions unavailable on the battlefield, reassure Trump that Russia is cooperating and turn the US administration against Ukraine. He pointed to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s reports that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth had not approved transfers of already purchased Patriot and NASAMS systems, interpreting the delays as pressure on Kyiv to become more accommodating.
Despite that pressure, Kuleba said the most difficult period had come after the Oval Office meeting in late February 2025, when official intelligence sharing stopped and support was cut off. Ukraine had since gained experience in adapting to worsening external conditions, he said, although he questioned how long that adaptation could continue.
Kuleba said he saw no evidence that European governments had joined Washington in pressing Ukraine to accept an agreement. He identified funding as their strongest potential source of influence. While European leaders were seeking substantial cuts to the European Union budget, he said he was unaware of any current proposal specifically to reduce Ukraine’s allocation, though that possibility could emerge.
He also highlighted Norway’s importance as a major donor, a participant in the F-16 programme and a provider of macro-financial support. Kuleba said he had no reason to believe Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre would sacrifice Ukraine’s interests to end the fighting. More broadly, he questioned the assumption that territorial concessions would satisfy Putin, saying Russia’s imperial ambitions were incompatible with an independent, sovereign Ukraine oriented toward Europe.
