Reform UK’s deputy leader, Richard Tice MP, has said he was shocked by an argument between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office on Friday, and has suggested that a peace deal could see Ukrainian land leased to Russia.
The Presidents of the US and Ukraine, as well as Mr Trump’s deputy, JD Vance, had a heated exchange in the White House on Friday.
Mr Zelensky, who was there to sign an agreement over natural minerals, was accused of being ungrateful for American support, and Mr Trump said that his Ukrainian counterpart was “gambling with World War 3”.
Zelensky ended up leaving early before a scheduled press conference and singing ceremony.
Trump has said he will see him again when he is “ready for peace”.
The Ukrainian and US Presidents had a public row in the Oval Office (Image: Getty)
Now, speaking exclusively to the Express in a cafe in Skegness, the seaside town is in his Lincolnshire constituency, Nigel Farage’s right hand man said: “Look, the reality is that peace talks are always difficult. Most conflicts and wars end up with some form of difficult, tense negotiation, and this was always going to be the case.
“Normally, that happens behind closed doors. Very unusual to see it in the public gaze.”
Asked if the argument shocked him, Mr Tice added: “Yes, it shocked everybody.
“But what you’ve got to do is actually focus on what’s the objective?
“The objective is, we’ve got to find a way to get to an enduring peace, and the only way we can do that is by talking, however difficult, however hard it is.
“It’s actually not about personalities. It’s about the objective to get an enduring peace.
“It’s all around the quality of the security guarantees, and I’ve been saying that for weeks, as has Nigel.”
Nigel Farage’s right hand man added “it’s also around the money”, mentioning $300billion in Russian state assets held in western central banks.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Rachel Reeves has signed over billions in frozen Russian assets to Ukraine (Image: Getty)
“Western leaders are being ridiculously feeble about having the courage to say, ‘We’re going to take those state assets from the aggressor Russia, and we’re going to use those to help rebuild Ukraine, to help defend Ukraine, with those security guarantees, and, potentially, to repay some of the money that’s been donated by western nations.’”
When asked if Ukraine should be given its sovereign territory back from Russia, Mr Tice answered: “Yes it’s sovereign territory.
“But, at the end of the day, people want peace. Everybody has to be honest about it.”
He then said there are “different ways to deal with land issues”, and gave an example of an agreement which accepts that land captured by Putin is Ukrainians territory, but you “grant a long-lease to Russia”.
“No one wants to reward Russia,” he said. But to get to peace, difficult discussions and compromises have to be made.”
On Saturday, the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, announced that £27.8billion in frozen Russian assets in the UK
The Ukrainian President arrived in the UK today ahead of a meeting of European leaders on Sunday.
He met Sir Keir Starmer on Saturday and is set to meet the King today.
Reform UK’s Richard Tice Says Ukraine Should ‘Lease’ Territory to Russia After Trump-Zelensky Row
The war in Ukraine has once again become a source of intense political debate in Britain after Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice suggested that leasing territory to Russia could form part of a possible settlement. The controversial proposal comes amid continuing disagreements over how the conflict should end, what security guarantees Ukraine should receive and whether negotiations could deliver a lasting peace.
The suggestion raises difficult questions about sovereignty, territorial integrity and the future of European security. It also highlights the divisions emerging among Western politicians over the best way to bring an end to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, particularly as arguments over military assistance, diplomatic negotiations and the role of the United States continue to shape the debate.
For Reform UK, the issue presents a delicate political challenge. The party has sought to position itself as a challenger to Britain’s established political leadership, but its approach to international affairs is likely to face close scrutiny as it attempts to demonstrate that it is prepared to play a serious role in government.
Richard Tice’s reported proposal is particularly contentious because any arrangement involving Ukrainian territory would have consequences extending far beyond the immediate conflict. It would raise questions about whether a negotiated settlement could protect Ukraine’s independence or instead reward territorial aggression.
The Debate Over Ukraine’s Future
Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Western governments have faced the difficult task of supporting Kyiv while managing the risks of a wider confrontation with Moscow.
Ukraine has insisted that its territorial integrity and sovereignty must be respected. Russia, meanwhile, has sought to retain control over occupied areas and has made demands that Kyiv and its supporters regard as unacceptable.
These competing positions have made diplomatic negotiations exceptionally difficult. Even when discussions focus on a ceasefire, the question of what happens to occupied territory remains one of the most sensitive obstacles to an agreement.
The idea of leasing territory, as opposed to formally transferring sovereignty, could be presented by its supporters as a way to create room for negotiations without requiring Ukraine to recognise Russian ownership of occupied land. In theory, such an arrangement might attempt to separate the question of practical control from the question of legal sovereignty.
However, the proposal would face substantial obstacles. Ukraine would have to decide whether any such arrangement was compatible with its constitution, national interests and the wishes of its citizens. It would also need to consider whether an agreement could prevent Russia from using a temporary settlement to prepare for another attack.
A lease arrangement would therefore not automatically provide a solution. Its viability would depend on the precise terms, the consent of Ukraine and the existence of credible mechanisms to enforce the agreement.
Trump’s Clash With Zelensky Adds Fuel to the Controversy
The debate over possible territorial concessions became particularly prominent following the public confrontation between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House in February 2025.
The extraordinary disagreement exposed tensions between Washington and Kyiv over the direction of peace negotiations. Trump questioned Ukraine’s negotiating position and pressed for an agreement to end the fighting, while Zelensky sought assurances that any settlement would protect his country’s future security.
The clash also raised concerns among European governments about the durability of American support for Ukraine. For many European leaders, the central issue is not simply how quickly the war can be stopped, but whether a settlement would prevent Russia from launching another invasion in the future.
Subsequent discussions about territorial concessions have demonstrated just how difficult those questions remain. Reuters reported in August 2025 that proposals discussed by Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin involved significant territorial questions, while Zelensky continued to reject the surrender of Ukrainian land. .
For Tice and Reform UK, engaging with this debate creates an opportunity to distinguish the party’s foreign policy from that of the government. However, it also invites scrutiny over whether the proposed approach would genuinely advance Britain’s interests.
A settlement that stopped the fighting could bring enormous relief to civilians suffering from years of war. But an agreement perceived as rewarding aggression could undermine confidence in international security arrangements and leave other countries questioning whether their borders would be protected in a future crisis.
Would a Territorial Lease Actually Work?
The concept of leasing territory sounds, at first, like a possible compromise between two incompatible demands. Ukraine could theoretically retain legal sovereignty while permitting another country to exercise certain rights over a defined area for an agreed period.
However, the practical questions would be formidable.
Who would administer the territory? Would Ukrainian citizens living there remain under Ukrainian law? What would happen to people who refused to accept the arrangement? Would Russia be permitted to station troops there, and who would monitor compliance with the agreement?
There would also be the question of duration. A short-term arrangement might simply postpone the dispute, while a long-term lease could create a situation in which Ukraine retained sovereignty on paper but had limited practical control over its land.
Security guarantees would be essential. Without credible enforcement, an agreement could leave Ukraine vulnerable to renewed pressure once international attention shifted elsewhere.
The arrangement would also need to account for the rights and wishes of people living in affected territories. Any lasting peace would have to consider displaced families, property claims, access to essential services and the possibility of people returning to their homes.
These challenges explain why territorial proposals cannot be judged solely by whether they offer a route to ending the immediate fighting. Their long-term consequences would be just as important.
The Wider Implications for Britain
Britain has provided substantial military, financial and diplomatic support to Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion. The future of that commitment is therefore an important issue for any political party seeking to lead the country.
A Reform UK government would face decisions about defence spending, military assistance, cooperation with European allies and Britain’s relationship with the United States.
Tice’s reported comments could prompt questions about how Reform would balance the desire to end the war with the need to deter future aggression. Supporters of negotiations may argue that a pragmatic settlement is preferable to an indefinite conflict. Critics may counter that territorial concessions without robust guarantees could encourage further expansion by Russia.
Neither argument removes the need for a detailed policy. British voters would be entitled to know what conditions Reform would insist upon, what role it would expect Ukraine to play in negotiations and how it would respond if an agreement failed.
The debate also highlights a broader challenge for Farage. A party can build support by criticising the foreign policy decisions of its opponents, but governing requires decisions that balance competing risks and national interests.
A Political Test for Reform UK
The controversy surrounding the idea of leasing Ukrainian territory could become another test of Reform UK’s ability to translate its political message into a coherent programme for government.
Farage and Tice have sought to present their party as an alternative to the established political order. That ambition requires them to demonstrate that their proposals are not only distinctive but also workable in practice.
On Ukraine, the distinction between advocating peace and explaining how to secure it is particularly important. An agreement that ends active hostilities but leaves the underlying conflict unresolved might provide immediate relief while creating fresh dangers in the years ahead.
Equally, insisting on an ideal outcome without a realistic diplomatic strategy could make negotiations more difficult and prolong the suffering of civilians.
The challenge is to identify an approach that respects Ukraine’s sovereignty, addresses legitimate security concerns and creates conditions in which any agreement can endure.
Ultimately, Richard Tice’s reported suggestion is likely to provoke debate because it touches on one of the most fundamental questions surrounding the war: whether peace can be achieved through territorial compromise without undermining the principles that protect independent nations.
For Reform UK, the response will depend on whether it can explain the proposal in detail and demonstrate how it would work alongside Britain’s international commitments.
For Ukraine, the stakes are far greater than a political argument in Westminster. The future of its territory, independence and security will shape the lives of millions of people.
And for Britain, the debate is a reminder that any government seeking to influence the outcome of the war must look beyond the immediate promise of a ceasefire. The real measure of success will be whether a settlement delivers a durable peace, protects civilians and reduces the risk of another devastating conflict.