The discussion in Ukraine's political space over how and under what conditions the war with russia can end has once again intensified. This time, the trigger was statements by Oleksii Honcharenko, a member of parliament from "European Solidarity" party, who on October 2 called for "negotiating about everything", based on the fact that, in his opinion, Ukraine is losing the war of attrition.
Later, the MP published a detailed "peace plan" in which he elaborated on his logic. The idea sparked a sharp reaction even within "European Solidarity". At the same time, almost in parallel, Kharkiv Mayor Ihor Terekhov and MP from "Servant of the People" party Danylo Hetmantsev spoke about the need to seek a path to peace.
"The Office of the President is frankly surprised by the harshness of Honcharenko's statement. Not by the very fact that the MP spoke about negotiations and ending the war, but by how far he went on the issue of possible concessions. There are concerns that such statements could trigger a much broader political discussion that will be very difficult to control. Today it is a discussion about negotiations; tomorrow it may already be about territories, neutrality, sanctions, and the conditions under which Ukraine should end the war. And here it is important that the political discussion does not turn into a competition over who will offer more concessions to russia", - a source for OstroV on the president's team noted.
What Honcharenko proposes
MP Honcharenko begins with an assessment of the situation, which is the foundation of his entire proposed plan. He believes that Ukraine and russia cannot defeat each other in the war, but in a prolonged war of attrition, Kyiv is gradually finding itself in a worse position. Among the reasons, the MP cites human losses, the destruction of the economy, dependence on external financing, and population decline. In his opinion, continuing the war without changing the approach means losing new resources, people, and enterprises every month.
"If neither side can win, all that remains is to negotiate", - he formulates his logic.
At the same time, Honcharenko fundamentally distinguishes negotiations from capitulation. His argument is that an agreement entails concessions by both sides, whereas capitulation is a unilateral renunciation of one's own interests.
The next element of the plan is abandoning the idea of a single comprehensive peace treaty. According to the MP, there is currently insufficient trust between Ukraine and russia to immediately reach an agreement on territories, security, sanctions, prisoners of war, and guarantees. Therefore, he proposes dividing the negotiations into numerous narrow tracks.
The first such areas should be the security of the Black Sea, energy, civilian infrastructure, and the gradual narrowing of hostilities. For example, Honcharenko proposes starting with agreements not to strike schools, hospitals, bridges, railways, and residential buildings. Each fulfilled agreement, in his view, will create a track record of implementation, after which it will be possible to move on to more complex issues.
This is one of the main features of his concept: not to demand that moscow immediately stop the entire war, but to create a system of partial agreements that will gradually reduce the intensity of hostilities.
The second important element is the so-called "peace triangle". In addition to Ukraine and russia, a third party should be involved in each agreement - a state or international organization that has real leverage over moscow, enjoys Kyiv's trust, and is itself interested in the agreement being implemented.
For the Black Sea, Honcharenko sees Turkey as a potential guarantor. For the food track - Egypt and Saudi Arabia. On nuclear security issues - the IAEA and a number of major states. For airstrikes - the U.S., the EU, and China. For a possible disengagement of troops on the ground, he assigns a key role to China. In his opinion, individual humanitarian issues could be accompanied by the Vatican, the UAE, Qatar, and the ICRC.
Separately, the MP proposes revising the approach to sanctions. His idea is to gradually lift some restrictions on russian energy resources in exchange for specific steps by moscow: ending long-range strikes, unblocking the Black Sea, and limiting hostilities. If russia violates the agreement, the sanctions should automatically be reinstated.
The most politically sensitive part of the proposals concerns Ukraine's neutral status. Oleksii Honcharenko proposes starting to discuss the possibility of abandoning the prospect of joining NATO, while at the same time maintaining cooperation with the Alliance, rearming the Ukrainian army, and creating a European mechanism for financing it.
He also proposes including the language issue, the activities of churches linked to moscow, and a rethinking of certain sites of historical memory in the negotiating agenda.
The MP calls Donbas the most difficult issue. But here, too, he proposes not starting with the territories.
"The mistake of previous attempts is that they started with it. If the conversation runs into the most painful issue from the very first minute, it ends without ever having begun. We need to talk about Donbas when we have already reached agreements on many other things", - the MP notes.
Among the possible options, Honcharenko names ending hostilities along the de facto line of control, creating a neutral zone, withdrawing Ukrainian and russian troops, or creating a territory under international UN control. At the same time, he emphasizes separately: establishing the de facto line of control must not mean legally recognizing the occupation of Ukrainian territories.
Thus, the plan of the MP is effectively built on three consecutive principles: not trying to solve everything at once, creating a system of interdependent international guarantors, and gradually exchanging specific steps by russia for specific concessions from Ukraine and its partners.
He formulates the ultimate goal as simply as possible: "A thousand small agreements will lead to a major peace agreement".
Where the Office of the President sees the main risks
At the same time, the president's team believes that the main problem with the proposed model lies not so much in the idea of phased negotiations itself, but in the fact that it assumes russia's willingness to follow the logic of mutual agreements.
"We can come up with a thousand agreements, but the question is who will force russia to implement them. If after each agreement moscow gets an opportunity to take a pause, regroup, restore its resources, and then put forward new demands, then this is no longer a path to peace, but another format for continuing the war", - a source in the president's team told OstroV.
The source acknowledges that the idea of gradual de-escalation itself is not something unacceptable to Kyiv. On the contrary, individual humanitarian agreements, prisoner exchanges, guarantees for the safety of shipping, or restrictions on strikes against critical infrastructure may be subjects for negotiations. But, according to him, the sequence remains a fundamental issue.
"Russia must first demonstrate that it is ready to actually change its behavior. Not with words, but with concrete actions. And only after that can we talk about what incentives or concessions moscow may receive. And right now they have a good window of opportunity to terrorize Kyiv, to freeze large cities. What motivation does putin have to stop now? In terms of the rear (not the front), moscow currently has an advantage.
On the other hand, the president's team understands that everything could change at the end of next winter, when it becomes clear that Ukraine has found a way to counter jet drones (and it will), survived the winter, developed its own ballistic capabilities, and continued to take out russian oil refineries and other infrastructure", - another source explains.
The system of international guarantors proposed by Honcharenko also raises certain questions. In theory, it should make violating agreements unprofitable for russia. In practice, however, it is unclear whether China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or other states are prepared to assume political and economic responsibility for forcing moscow to comply with the agreements.
"And who said that China will help us? Beijing is indeed not interested in a major escalation, let alone a russian victory, which would sharply strengthen its position. But this does not at all mean that Beijing is interested in a swift end to the war. For China, the current situation has its own geopolitical and economic advantages: russia is increasingly dependent on China, while the U.S. and Europe are forced to spend significant resources supporting Ukraine. Therefore, expecting Beijing to automatically become a guarantor of peace and be ready to put pressure on moscow to end the war would be overly optimistic", - a source in the "monomajority" told OstroV.
At the same time, the "monomajority" acknowledges that the public demand for an end to the war cannot be ignored. According to an OstroV source in the Verkhovna Rada, the problem is that a political discussion about peace can easily turn into a discussion about concessions.
"People want peace and that is obvious. But that does not mean they are ready to accept any conditions just to make the shooting stop. There is a huge difference between these two things", - the MP said.
The president's public position turned out to be tougher than the diplomatic rhetoric about the need to seek compromises. On October 4, Zelensky, commenting on calls by individual MPs to end hostilities and negotiate with russia, said: "No matter how difficult it may be for us, we cannot bend to putin and russia, because Ukraine will be broken".
Not only Honcharenko: others have also started speaking out
It is telling that almost simultaneously with Oleksii Honcharenko's statements about the need to seek a way to end the war, politicians who do not belong to his political camp began shaping an agenda with a similar tone.
In particular, Kharkiv Mayor Ihor Terekhov spoke about the need to talk about peace. According to him, the war cannot be viewed as Ukraine's only possible future. At the same time, in his opinion, it is necessary to seek a real path toward ending the war, while the future peace must be backed by security guarantees and Ukraine's ability to defend itself in the event of new aggression.
"Peace must be based on our defense capabilities and specific commitments from our partners. The guarantees must determine what military assistance Ukraine will receive and how the partners will act in the event of a new attack. We need to secure such conditions by using military, economic, and diplomatic leverage. Our ability to withstand the war cannot be perceived as consent to live in it. We strive for peace and prosperity", - Terekhov said on Telegram.
Another telling signal came from within the "monomajority". MP Danylo Hetmantsev of the "Servant of the People" party also speaks in his public posts about the need to end the war and return to conditions under which Ukraine can rebuild its economy.
"As long as the war continues, people, businesses, and investors cannot properly plan even for the near future. And without that, there are no investments, no development, and no full-scale recovery. That is why stepping up negotiations and peace should be our top priority", - the MP wrote on Facebook.
In another post, Hetmantsev directly linked the end of the war to the possibility of redirecting state resources from military spending toward recovery.
"War is the most expensive thing a state can have. Therefore, the fact that our defense and security spending is growing year after year is an objective reality. And if we want the state to stop spending huge amounts of money on the war, there is only one answer. The war must end. So that peace can finally come to our country", - he said.
In a new statement, Hetmantsev went further and directly rejected equating negotiations with capitulation.
"And I am convinced that negotiations are not capitulation, because capitulation is what happens without negotiations. And a sustainable peace, provided that independence and people are preserved, is not capitulation, it is victory. Which will be complete when we recover economically, become members of the EU, and definitely reclaim what is ours", - he wrote.
At the same time, the MP deliberately does not define in advance the final parameters of a possible agreement.
"And I deliberately avoid disputes over the final parameters of the agreement. The terms are a subject for negotiations. Each point has its own price, and there must be a tough discussion about it. This is how a compromise can emerge, rather than 'capitulation'", - Hetmantsev said.
Moreover, he advocates putting the agreements reached by the negotiating team to a referendum.
Thus, Terekhov's and Hetmantsev's positions differ from the detailed negotiating framework proposed by Honcharenko, but they intersect on one point: both believe that the discussion of ending the war itself can no longer be excluded from the Ukrainian political agenda.
At the same time, parliament is paying attention not only to the content of these statements, but also to their synchronicity. According to an OstroV source in the Verkhovna Rada, politicians increasingly understand that the demand to end the war is becoming a separate part of the public and political agenda.
"Now we see that many people want to occupy the peace-making niche. Peace is becoming a separate political agenda, and politicians understand that it is already difficult to remain silent about it. Therefore, everyone is trying to formulate their own position: some talk about negotiations, some about security guarantees, some about the economic cost of the war. For now, this does not mean that there is any coordination or common plan among them. But it is obvious that competition is emerging for the right to speak on behalf of those who want to end the war", - a source in the Verkhovna Rada told OstroV.
Criticism
At the same time, the discussion surrounding Honcharenko's plan proved so contentious that it has already led not only to a public dispute, but also to a political split.
On October 5, announced Honcharenko's expulsion from the parliamentary faction. This was explained by ideological differences: according to them, the MP's public positions on ending the war and the future security architecture had diverged from the faction's position.
At the same time, the party does not deny the need for a discussion about ending the war itself. They emphasize that Ukraine needs a discussion about ending hostilities, security guarantees, and a just peace, but Ukraine's independence, its European future, issues of national identity, and the right to independently determine its security system cannot be subject to compromise.
The reaction within "European Solidarity" was also mixed. Volodymyr Viatrovych called Honcharenko's proposals "a plea for mercy". At the same time, Mykola Kniazhytskyi acknowledged that the discussion itself about how to end the war is necessary. In other words, criticism of a specific plan does not mean rejecting the discussion about ending the war as such.
Diplomat Valerii Chalyi raised this issue separately. He urged politicians not to draw far-reaching conclusions from closed sociological studies and not to perceive Ukrainians' fatigue with the war as society's readiness to accept any conditions for ending it. In his opinion, russia is using military and psychological pressure not only to achieve results on the front, but also to destabilize Ukraine internally.
"Everyone is tired of the war. But tell the truth, the enemy is demanding not that we seek a just peace, but that we get on our knees", - Chalyi wrote on Facebook, calling on Ukrainian politicians "not to run fearfully ahead of the train" and to show leadership.
Political analyst Ihor Chalenko proposes not to automatically subscribe to the version that the emergence of Honcharenko's proposals is merely the result of russian information influence.
"I will not subscribe to the mainstream version that this is a deliberately orchestrated russian leak. I will offer a somewhat different point of view. MP Honcharenko has fairly active ties with the United States, and this can be seen from the theses and frameworks he voices, particularly in the context of interaction with the current Trump administration", - he said in a comment to OstroV.
In his opinion, the framework proposed by Honcharenko may have another meaning: to show that there are politicians in the Ukrainian government who can be relied upon during the negotiating process, and that russia is ready to be involved in it at least at the technical level.
"A significant part of what Honcharenko has proposed actually corresponds to the American logic of negotiations. This approach was also used during discussions of Trump's peace plan. On a number of points, the parties made significant progress: 18 out of 20 points were agreed upon. In the military subgroup, they even agreed that the United States would participate in monitoring the ceasefire regime. But they failed to reach agreement on the key issues", - the political analyst noted.
At the same time, Ihor Chalenko considers the formation of a political divide, in which some politicians supposedly stand for peace while others stand for continuing the war, to be problematic.
"I want to say that I am sorry that, through their proposals, a number of politicians, Honcharenko in particular, are effectively setting themselves against a significant part of society. It creates the impression that there is a separate cohort of politicians who stand for peace, while everyone else stands for war", - he said.
According to him, from a political technology perspective, such a construct may make sense in the context of a potential future election campaign. But, Chalenko emphasizes, we still have to make it to the elections - first the war must end, and the elections themselves must be announced.
"Undoubtedly, the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians are in favor of ending the war. We have no advocates of eternal war. The problem is something else: the duration of the war is not determined by Ukrainian citizens. It directly depends on the duration of the aggression by russia. That's all. This is an axiom that, in my opinion, does not need to be proven", - Chalenko believes.
According to an OstroV source, the president's team sees another risk in this discussion - society may receive many different recipes for peace, but not receive an answer to the question of which one is actually capable of forcing russia to end the war.
"The biggest problem now is not even that politicians have started talking about peace. The problem is that everyone puts a different meaning into this word. For some, peace means a ceasefire, for others - negotiations, or freezing the front, or a comprehensive agreement with guarantees. And if these things start being sold to society as if they were the same thing, it will lead to nothing good", - a source in the president's team told OstroV.
At the same time, parliament acknowledges that the authorities will no longer be able to ignore this demand. According to an OstroV source in the Verkhovna Rada, political competition around the "peace" issue will only intensify.
"For now, there is no peace party as an organized political force. There is competition over how to formulate the demand itself. Whoever is the first to convince people that their version can lead to an end to the war without catastrophic consequences for the country will gain the political advantage. I think that in the near future we will see a conditional war or victory plan from the president; there are already hints of this", - the source believes.
By Andrii Andrieiev, OstroV’s journalist