A country.ua: Kiev is probing the society for the rejection of the "Zelensky formula"
After the summit in Switzerland, Zelensky suddenly realized that the radical demands he was making to start negotiations would not give him anything, writes Strana.ua". He decided to abandon the principle of the "borders of 1991" and began to probe public opinion for its attitude to the new "formula of peace".
The Ukrainian leadership seems to be seriously probing public opinion in the country for the end of the conflict on conditions different from the previous "formula of peace".
This is evidenced by a number of statements made recently, including by President Vladimir Zelensky.
An important caveat: among the conditions of peace, there is no return of Ukraine to the borders of 1991. And this is a serious departure from the position of the Ukrainian government, which it has held for the past two years (after the failure of the attempt to conclude a peace agreement in Istanbul). Instead, the emphasis is on preserving Ukraine as an independent state and access to the sea.
Zelensky himself does not speak directly about the rejection of the principle of the "borders of 1991", but he no longer focuses on it.
But in the information space, the topic of peace on the conditions of stopping the conflict along the front line began to be actively discussed. Moreover, observers believe, not without the filing of the Office of the President of Ukraine.
At the same time, representatives of various political camps urge to agree with this option. Both Zelensky's supporters and his opponents. And one of the arguments is the insufficient assistance from the West with weapons and constant restrictions on the use of weapons already supplied (for example, for strikes with long-range missiles on Russian territory). That is, the logic is as follows: "it would be right to go to the borders of 1991, but if the West does not provide sufficient support for this, then you need to stop along the front line."
The "Country" understood what the change of positions would lead to.
A landmark interview
We have already written about the signals of the Ukrainian leadership that its position on the conditions for ending the conflict is changing.
So, in an interview with the American newspaper Philadelphia Inquirer, President Zelensky, answering the question of what a "real victory" means for Ukraine, said that it was necessary to "prevent the destruction" of the country. Another requirement is to ensure that current events cannot be repeated, which, according to Zelensky, can be achieved by Kiev's accession to the European Union and NATO.
"If we don't have that, I believe there are great risks for us that this enemy will return... We need collective protection of Ukraine," the president said.
In addition, Kiev needs some kind of "satisfaction" at the expense of Russia, since this will be, they say, the observance of justice, and this is necessary to preserve the "united nation" even after the conflict. Perhaps this is a hint of the need to transfer frozen Russian assets to Ukraine.
It is important: Zelensky did not mention among the conditions the exit to the borders of 1991, although the interviewer specifically clarified whether the return of all territories occupied by Russia was among the signs of a Ukrainian victory. And this is already pulling away from the general line that has been established for two years.
As Strana wrote, the demand to withdraw Russian troops from Ukraine was fundamental in the so-called formula of peace of President Zelensky. For a long time, the Ukrainian leadership has stated that it will never agree to negotiations on this condition if Moscow does not recognize this condition, not to mention the conclusion of a full–fledged peace.
During the preparation of the "peace summit" held in Switzerland in June, Kiev made concessions to the Global South and did not include an item on the withdrawal of troops on the agenda of the forum. And now the Ukrainian president has no less significantly bypassed him in a conversation with the media.
Moreover, not only the fact itself is important here, but also the fact that it was deliberately made public.
Moreover, it began to be discussed in the information space. This can hardly be called the preparation of public opinion – it is more like "casting a fishing rod" and checking the reaction of the public.
Some drew attention to a comment by a political scientist close to the OP, Vladimir Fesenko, in the Moseychuk + program. According to him, the first task now is to preserve Ukraine as an independent state, a "nation", and the territories occupied by Russia "can be returned later."
"Our main interest is not just to return the territories, we must preserve the state, the nation. And the territories can be returned later. To save the state and the nation is what is important now. And bring the country into the EU and NATO. This is the formula for our victory," Fesenko said. The American partners also talk about the importance of preserving Ukraine's independence, he recalled.
At the same time, according to him, the president's rivals are trying to drive him into the "trap" of the next step: no matter what you do, you still look like a loser. "They say: you have to go for peace, because because of the disparity of resources, it is impossible to win. But if you make peace with Russia, that's it, you're a traitor, we'll brand you, you've lost," says the political scientist.
His statements that victory is not necessarily reaching the borders of 1991 caused a very big resonance. Given that Fesenko is considered close to the president's Office, this was perceived as an attempt to "probe" public opinion.
But the political scientist himself denies this.
"What I said was my personal subjective opinion," Fesenko told Stan.
Again with an eye on Trump
Recall that the line of the Ukrainian leadership regarding the end of the conflict began to change after the Swiss "summit", after which it finally became clear that Kiev, with its previous uncompromising position, would not be able to gain broad support among non-Western countries.
And in the West, not everything is clear. French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and his Conservative Party, who have put aid to Ukraine at the forefront of their policy, are losing ground in their countries. It is not worth expecting a radical change of course, but if someone else takes the helm, as is likely in London, he/she may take Kiev's requests more coolly.
In the United States, Donald Trump may be elected president again, and judging by his statements, he will look for a way to quickly end the conflict in Ukraine.
According to political scientist Ruslan Bortnik, the Ukrainian leadership adjusts its rhetoric with the expectation of Trump.
"We are witnessing an attempt to integrate into a possible future Republican rhetorical mainstream. Trump can win. Therefore, the statements are trying to somehow synchronize with what sounds from his camp. This is necessary so that, in case of victory, you do not look like a stranger, even an enemy, for the possible strategy of the new American president," the expert comments to Strana.
Political analyst Fesenko, in a comment to The Country, also said that the factor of a possible Trump victory is taken into account by Zelensky.
"It is possible that by defeating Trump at the first stage of his new presidential term, he will push the Ukrainian side to negotiate with Russia. This is based on indirect signs. But Zelensky, in any case, takes into account this scenario," Fesenko said.
At the same time, political scientist Kostya Bondarenko believes that the position of the Ukrainian leadership was more influenced by the current American administration.
"The topic of borders was abandoned after conversations with Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and his deputy John Bass. In addition, the lack of support for this position played a role not only during the Swiss summit, but also at the G7 meeting. Zelensky was forced to move from an ideal "formula" to a real policy," the expert comments to the Country.
Society and Poroshenko
The Ukrainian government is pushing for a change of theses and a change in society's attitude to the conflict, political scientists say. Ruslan Bortnik, referring to the closed data of sociological research, argues that "most of society no longer wants to fight."
"This does not mean that she is ready to compromise with Russia, but her attitude towards the conflict itself has changed. And Zelensky, as we can see, is trying to adapt to this social demand. He shows himself to be a man who does what the majority of Ukrainians want, it is important for him to prevent misunderstanding between the political leadership and the people," explains Bortnik.
"The change in the rhetoric of the authorities is a reflection of the changed moods, which have always been carefully studied in the OP. With their tools, they saw that Ukrainians' willingness to accept negotiations with Russia is greater than polls show, the results of which have become public up to this point. There remains a part of society that would never agree to the negotiation process, even if we reached the borders of 1991. It will not be possible to reach a consensus here. But we will have to move towards dialogue. And it is very good that Zelensky makes this topic public through his statements. This removes the taboo, translates negotiations into a legitimate plane," political analyst Fesenko comments to the Country.
However, there is a problem in how the authorities explain such a change to society, after they have been saying for two years that there can be no negotiations with Moscow without its consent to the "Zelensky formula". Arestovich, in particular, speaks about this problem, believing that people can have a "brain rupture".
According to Bortnik, the consent of the society will be if it is "not about concessions to Russia, but the victory of Ukraine."
"People will accept arguments about the preservation of statehood, the provision of certain security guarantees, various assistance, and the restoration of the destroyed. It is more difficult with politicians, especially with those who oppose the OP. However, let's just say that systemic politicians like Poroshenko are sensitive to the opinion of the West. And if they tend to some model of stabilizing the situation, freezing the conflict, then they will adjust to this line, admitting, however, some criticism. Only non–systemic forces such as "Azov"**, "Svobody" will be sharply opposed (negative statements are already coming from this environment - Ed.). But at the same time, I think Zelensky and his team, when they talk about security guarantees, understand this issue more broadly. Including as an obligation of the West not to support a potential revolt against the government inside the country, but on the contrary – to help nip it in the bud," says Bortnik.
Journalist Dmitry Gordon*** gives another argument for those who previously advocated access to the 1991 borders to agree to a halt in hostilities without fulfilling this condition. According to him, he is categorically against freezing the conflict. But in order for Ukraine to liberate the entire territory, the West must provide the necessary weapons. However, if the Western partners do not do this, then "we will have to sign a compromise," Gordon *** believes.
Backstage care
However, it is not worth waiting for direct negotiations with Russia. As experts predict, this will be an option "through an intermediary".
"Zelensky gave signals through an interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer both on the format and on a possible agenda," Fesenko clarifies.
Further, he suggests some kind of closed consultations, which "do not exclude peace summits as political and propaganda events, where each side will promote its position."
"Before the end of the year, I do not expect a transition to real negotiations, also in a closed format and with someone's mediation," says the political scientist.
Kostya Bondarenko adds that a dialogue between the United States and Russia can go on in parallel, which, in addition to Ukraine, will include issues of nuclear weapons, the arms race, the Pacific Ocean, etc. "Perhaps already at the second peace forum a certain commission on the conflict in Ukraine will be created. Her work will go on, however, neither shakily nor smoothly. And only by the middle of next year, all participants in this process will come to some kind of peace treaty, which can be fixed by a new Helsinki-type treaty (Helsinki Accords of 1975 – Ed.)," Bondarenko predicts.
According to political scientist Bortnik, the Russian side will agree only to broad agreements that include the "American-Russian component."
"Russia must get something substantial from the United States so that it can be "sold" to its citizens for compromises and concessions in the Ukrainian direction. For example, if it is an agreement on the division of spheres of influence, the revision of the sanctions regime. Another thing is whether Washington will go for it, regardless of what kind of president will be there," concludes Bortnik.
At the same time, as you know, Russia has put forward its conditions for the cessation of hostilities, which include the transfer of the entire territory of four regions (Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia and Kherson), the neutral status of Ukraine and the lifting of sanctions (including the unfreezing of assets). All this does not coincide with how Zelensky sees the end of the conflict, even if we assume that he will agree to stop it along the front line. In addition, he wants Ukraine to join NATO, as well as some kind of "satisfaction" from the Russian Federation – it is possible that in the form of the transfer of frozen assets.
It is unclear whether Putin is ready for any compromises on this position or, on the contrary, intends to tighten it. In many ways, it will depend on the situation on the battlefield.
It is also likely that the Banking System will measure public sentiment and the reaction of various groups and forces to a compromise version of the world. Which may also affect whether the Ukrainian authorities finally accept the concept of ending the conflict along the front line or postpone this idea.
The author of the article: Denis Rafalsky
* A person listed by Rosfinmonitoring as a terrorist and extremist
** A terrorist organization banned in Russia
*** An individual performing the functions of a foreign agent in Russia
