Every time it’s the same: different views on the conditions for peace. We cannot negotiate peace until the restoration of territorial integrity and the receipt of security guarantees—some say. We can compromise on territories for the future—say others. If conceding territories, we need to get security guarantees, otherwise, they will attack us from these territories—convinced others. We cannot allow Putin to block our entry into NATO—say some. We cannot fight for NATO—say others.
Tell me, why are you discussing all this? Do you really not understand that the Russians are not going to talk and negotiate anything real with us—well, except for what helps them make money during the war? That every time they come to negotiations, they come with a program to destabilize Ukraine or to buy time until the next elections in the U.S. The station where serious temporary agreements could have been made with the Russians is far behind us.
I just want to understand not only the hypothetical Honcharenko but all of us. Are these discussions about negotiation conditions cynicism or just a psychological defense for people who simply cannot believe that the enemy does not consider them human? And people are just trying to return to times when he still pretended to consider them and could be talked to?
In reality, if we are completely honest, this war has exactly two open endings. The first is the weakening of Russia and a halt to hostilities. I hope that we can use this time to prepare for a new invasion. And the second is the weakening and disappearance of Ukraine and the annexation of its former territories to the Russian Federation. Of course, with an open ending for everyone. Someone might hope that they will be allowed to stay and just live under a foreign flag. But everyone must then simply weigh their own chances and understand where the dangers to you and your family are greater, in continuing resistance or in such a capitulation.
No other reality beyond these two outcomes exists. And all conversations about something else are either foolishness or demagoguery.
* * *
The “European Solidarity” party faction in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine cautiously said goodbye to Oleksiy Honcharenko after the deputy presented his own peace plan, remarkably reminiscent of the intentions of the incumbent President Volodymyr Zelensky back in 2019.
The farewell took place amidst outraged comments from supporters of the political force on social media. Some members of the Verkhovna Rada from “European Solidarity” are even upset: why do commentators pay special attention to the situation with Oleksiy Honcharenko, but react differently to similar calls from another Member of Parliament – a representative of the Servant of the People party, Danylo Hetmantsev.
It seems clear to me why. Because the “Servant of the People” party entered the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on the political program of Volodymyr Zelensky, focused on the idea of possible agreements with Russian President Putin and ending the Russian-Ukrainian war precisely on the terms that can be proposed by Ukraine to the Russian authorities.
The fact that Putin is not going to negotiate with Ukrainians and is full of desire and thirst to destroy the Ukrainian state, to expel and intimidate the overwhelming majority of its population, was not felt by either Volodymyr Zelensky in 2019 or Oleksiy Honcharenko in 2026.
But the voters of “European Solidarity” and Petro Poroshenko’s voters in 2019 voted for a sober attitude to this reality, which developed in Russian-Ukrainian relations after the Russian attack on Crimea and Donbas. Of course, they would like the party they voted for to continue to uphold the idea of reality, rather than dangerous illusions, which could ultimately lead to the collapse of Ukrainian statehood without even the need for Russian troops to capture Kyiv.
The paradox is not even whether we can now talk about the regularity of Oleksiy Honcharenko’s exit from the “European Solidarity” faction. Not at all. What is interesting is how a deputy who began his career in openly pro-Russian political associations ended up in a national-democratic faction. And the answer to this question lies in Oleksiy Honcharenko’s political career, who, like any regional politician, was oriented towards the sentiments of potential voters in Odesa, the vast majority of whom consistently voted for representatives of anti-Ukrainian pro-Russian political forces.
As is known, Oleksiy Honcharenko even lost elections on a pro-Russian political platform to the leader of the so-called Rodina party, Ihor Markov, who appeared much more radical in his desire to subject Ukraine to Putin than his opponents, and therefore seemingly received a mandate as a Member of the Verkhovna Rada.
Seemingly, because it seems that there was no avoiding falsification here either. But whether there were falsifications or not, the mandate from Odesa was destined to go in any case to a representative of anti-state pro-Russian forces, who together received the overwhelming majority of the voters’ support.
The turning point occurred in 2013 when it became obvious to many people, even in southern Ukraine, that pro-Russian forces had no intention of fostering warm relations with the so-called “elder brother.” Instead, they simply wanted to hand over the port city to the Russian Federation. It was after this that Oleksiy Goncharenko began his political reformation. He became one of the members of parliament from Petro Poroshenko’s bloc. The new president of Ukraine built his bloc primarily as a centrist union, distancing himself from the then vanguard of the country’s national-democratic forces, the People’s Front, led by the then Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. Thus, Petro Poroshenko’s bloc had the opportunity to unite both people close to the new head of state who held national-democratic positions and those who reconsidered their political views according to the new state agenda.
Among these people, of course, was Oleksiy Goncharenko. But he was not alone. During Poroshenko’s presidency, a new reformation occurred, so by the presidential and parliamentary elections of 2019, in a situation where the confrontation between national-democratic forces had eroded the People’s Front’s ratings, forcing its leaders to take electoral responsibility for the country’s economic and political reforms, the current president appeared as the true leader of the national-democratic forces of the country. Because there was no alternative.
In this situation, Oleksiy Goncharenko ran as an independent candidate, understanding that in Odesa in 2019, the majority of voters were enamored with Volodymyr Zelensky and believed in the possibility of agreements with that same Putin, so a representative of the European Solidarity party was unlikely to gain much favor. Running independently ended in victory for the promising young politician.
In the Verkhovna Rada, Goncharenko joined the European Solidarity to participate in the institutional development of parliament (since without being in a faction, he couldn’t join the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe) and because he shared previous work with European Solidarity representatives in Petro Poroshenko’s bloc. However, European Solidarity is not a bloc. It does not allow for the diverse positions that MPs from the BPP could take between 2014 and 2019. The modern European Solidarity is a national-democratic party. Therefore, Goncharenko’s departure from it was indeed a matter of time, not a political metamorphosis. This is because Goncharenko was never a national-democratic politician. From this point of view, it is entirely logical that he is no longer a member of the European Solidarity party faction.
From an ideological standpoint, Goncharenko is currently closest to the political project created by Volodymyr Zelensky in 2019, the Servant of the People party.
But the problem is that this project has also been reformed during the years of war. Among its representatives today, there are both people holding sincere patriotic positions and those who continue to live under illusions related to ending the war and negotiating with Putin. Therefore, it is also impossible to speak of a unified party or a single political force here.
The question, of course, is not about which party or political force one may belong to. The issue is how much these people truly align their slogans and intentions with the expectations of what might not happen in the challenging 2020s and possibly 2030s of this wartime century, regarding their electoral prospects. However, these electoral prospects can only arise if the hot phase of the endless Russian-Ukrainian war ends. Currently, there are no objective prerequisites for ending this hot phase to start any negotiations, even about a ceasefire on the Russian-Ukrainian front, not even about a partial truce in the war. Such possibilities will not be provided by Oleksiy Honcharenko or Danylo Hetmantsev. They can only be ensured by the Ukrainian soldier through the destruction of Russian resources and eliminating Russia’s capability to continue the Russian-Ukrainian war.
Unfortunately, for us, for Honcharenko, for Hetmantsev, for those who consider themselves representatives of the peace party, and for those called representatives of the war party, no other possibilities for ending the Russian-Ukrainian war in this century have existed, exist, or will exist.
