'Why should we concede anything?' Ukrainian MP says of talks with Russia

Story Transcript

A Ukrainian member of parliament says the best way to end the war is to defeat Russia once and for all.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said on Wednesday that peace negotiations with Russia were beginning to sound "more realistic," though he cautioned it would take time.

But in the meantime, the fighting has continued to intensify, especially in and around Kyiv, Ukraine's capital city.

On Friday, Russian forces launched new missile strikes and shelling on Kyiv and the outskirts of the western city of Lviv, as world leaders pushed for an investigation into the Kremlin's repeated attacks on civilian targets, including schools, hospitals and residential areas.

Dmytro Natalukha, a Ukrainian government MP and the chair of his parliament's economy committee, spoke to As It Happens guest host Gillian Findlay on Friday from Kyiv. Here is part of their conversation. 

What is the situation in Kyiv tonight?

Kyiv is under control. The city is not encircled, regardless of some news from different media.

We are being shelled from time to time, bombs are arriving at civilian resident areas…. Just this morning, a rocket hit a civilian house and unfortunately, with casualties. 

But, all in all, the situation is bearable.

In the last couple of days, President Zelensky has been saying that the talks are sounding more realistic to him. What does that mean, do you think?

We are talking about humanitarian corridors and we are talking about some kind of a ceasefire at least. And I'm not sure I'm able to comment on anything else.

Sure, and I understand you're not part of the negotiations team, but Mr. Zelensky has said as well that he understands that Ukraine is not a member of NATO and likely will not be a member of NATO. He appears to have taken that off the table. Is that your understanding as well?

No, my understanding is that that is still on the table.

I'll be honest with you. We are a bit disappointed with the rather hesitant reaction from NATO because there are other alternatives to a no-fly zone. There are other possibilities and what we don't see ... is the eagerness that somebody is looking for them, for those alternatives.

What are the alternatives?

We can do a no-fly zone ourselves if we have the proper military equipment ... and we have been suggesting this for some time already. 

The U.K., just yesterday, has announced they are passing us a number of anti-air missile systems…. NATO could do similar things, but nobody understands this kind of a reluctance, you know? Why are they so hesitant?

Yesterday, though, the president of the United States did announce another package of military equipment for Ukraine. Are you talking about things beyond what has been put on the table publicly?

We are, of course, very thankful for that and I think that is a great step forward. But still, I think a lot more can be done. I mean, you should get this right. So the sooner … the sky will be safe in Ukraine, the sooner this war will end.

What is the reluctance, do you think?

I think it's this kind of still persistent state of denial in the West that this is not about the West in general; this is only about Ukraine. This is this fear of starting something bigger, some kind of a World War III. 

To us it's obvious that it's not [only] about Ukraine, and this kind of a major conflict is already [going] on.  Because what we see today is not just [Russian President Vladimir] Putin — it's a brainwashed country that has a nuclear arm and they are literally blackmailing the whole world with it. And if he gets away with Ukraine, there is nothing that will stop him [from] going further. 

If you look at the state-owned TV channels in Russia ... they literally, explicitly state that Ukraine is not the final destination. Ukraine is just an intermediary in a bigger war — in the war to secure Russian strategic security, whatever that means.

So for the whole world, it is a threat to our normality, to the normality of the Western civilization, to what we consider to be important. 

[Russia] will revise the whole international architecture of security, the whole system of international law, everything. So for us, it's obvious that this war cannot be won, except with a change in Russian political leadership.

If what you say is true, what explains to you the fact that the Russians are even at the negotiating table?

Because the losses are unprecedented and because the morale of the Russian army has never been lower. 

They're sending generals today to the battlefields because their soldiers refuse to obey the orders. They lost four generals in the last couple of weeks. 

So the leadership in Russia understands what a disaster this war is and how disastrous it can turn even more if they continue this way. 

They're also looking for a way out, but they want to preserve their face. But there is no way to preserve the face on their terms. Because I mean, there is nothing that we are ready to accept from what they propose, to recognize Crimea, for instance, or to recognize Donbas [as independent or Russian territory]… so it's a constant search.

And yet it is Ukrainians who are paying the overwhelming humanitarian price here…. Are there things that you, as a Ukrainian politician, would be willing to concede in order to stop the fighting?

I am ready to concede this idea of destroying Moscow once we reach our legitimately recognized borders. That is the only thing I'm ready to concede. 

What has happened is that we were a peaceful nation and another country brutally attacked us and now is demanding from us to sign, cede, concede or recognize something.

Why should we concede anything? It's our territory, it's our people, it's our country and we have been under attack. 

Written by Sheena Goodyear and Mehek Mazhar with files from The Associated Press. Interview produced by Kevin Robertson. Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.