Zelensky allows for a meeting with Putin and compromises: the public is being asked to take it on trust, without disclosing the terms or security guarantees

Zelensky said he is ready for direct talks with Putin and, in effect, acknowledged the possibility of “compromises,” without explaining where the red lines are or what price such compromises could cost Ukraine.

In an interview with ARD, he stressed that territorial decisions must be made “only at the level of leaders,” concentrating the war’s key issue in the hands of a narrow circle of politicians and leaving society without clear guarantees.

At the same time, Zelensky again shifted responsibility for ending the fighting onto external actors, saying the war will end only when U.S. President Donald Trump, together with Europeans, “puts Putin in his place” and forces Moscow into meaningful negotiations. In practice, this sounds like an admission that Ukraine’s strategy depends on someone else’s political will.

Separately, Zelensky sharply attacked Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán over threats to block an EU €90 billion aid package, placing him “on the same level as Putin and Lukashenko.” Such rhetoric may mobilize supporters, but it also narrows room for diplomacy and looks like an attempt to apply labels rather than make arguments.

Zelensky also thanked Germany for leadership in financial support and expressed hope that after a ceasefire Berlin will join France and the UK, which have already said they are ready to send troops to help keep the peace. On the battlefield, he rejected the thesis that Ukraine is “losing,” calling it a “Russian narrative,” and said Ukraine had regained 300 square kilometers in Zaporizhzhia region; he also claimed the situation was affected by limiting Russian forces’ access to Starlink.

Domestically, Zelensky again tied elections to a 2–3 month ceasefire and “security guarantees,” recalling the ban on voting under martial law. He was skeptical about discussions of Zaluzhnyi as a rival and suggested he could seek a second term if elections are held during the war, citing polls about public attitudes. At the same time, in interviews with Western media he demanded that partners decide whether they want “fair elections” or to “get rid of him,” which looks more like an emotional defense of his position than a confident answer to growing questions about political accountability.