Ukraine, on the threshold of the fifth year of war: negotiations without end, elections without peace?
The process of negotiating an exit from the Russian-Ukrainian war seems to have become an end in itself. While Ukraine drains its resources, Vladimir Putin buys time, Donald Trump pursues political and financial stakes, and Europe moves forward through slow bureaucratic procedures.
The war in Ukraine enters its fifth year/PHOTO: Shutterstock
Just as you cannot count the moving fish in an aquarium without capturing a snapshot, it is difficult to predict the final outcome of negotiations, as the dynamics change from day to day. What may be described as a possible outcome today may look different tomorrow.
At any moment, “negotiations for the sake of negotiations” can be abandoned in favor of a concrete formula for ending the war. But such a decision depends not so much on Donald Trump's desire to close the Ukrainian file before the congressional elections, but on the Kremlin's strategic calculation, writes Zerkalo Nedeli.
Elections in a time of war
In parallel with the external talks, Ukraine is entering a stage where the internal political logic is starting to move faster and harder than the diplomatic process. Regardless of when the war stops, elections will have to be held – either after the cessation of hostilities, or even during them, if the great powers push in that direction.
According to reports by Reuters and the Financial Times, recent talks have considered a possible sequence of steps: a peace deal in the spring, followed by presidential elections and possibly a referendum.
However, many unknowns remain. Would it be a comprehensive peace agreement or just an armistice? Could elections be held without the lifting of martial law? Ukraine's constitution prohibits parliamentary elections during martial law, but in the case of presidential elections, the ban is regulated by ordinary law, which could be amended.
Maintaining martial law during an election campaign would mean a short campaign, security restrictions and increased administrative control. Proponents of such a formula would argue that it is a measure of prudence in a fragile context. Critics would see in it a framework that limits political competition and raises questions about the completely free character of the election.
Political calculation from Kiev
According to internal polls cited by political sources, the current president would have an advantage in the first round of the elections, but would encounter difficulties in a possible second round in front of opponents with high ratings of public trust.
In this context, organizing elections in a single round – or creating political conditions that favor a quick victory – would represent a major stake for the presidential team. The referendum on the support of a peace plan is also analyzed as a political tool, intended to strengthen the legitimacy of a possible agreement.
In the background, the president initiated a series of public moves – meetings with popular figures, greater openness to the media, reconfigurations in the executive branch – interpreted by some analysts as part of a repositioning strategy ahead of a possible campaign.
What does the Kremlin want?
Any scenario, however, remains conditional on Moscow's position.
For Vladimir Putin, maintaining controlled uncertainty may be more advantageous than a quick end to the conflict. There are at least three hypotheses discussed in diplomatic circles:
1. An agreement to influence the Ukrainian political scene, without guaranteeing internal stability in Kiev.
2. A compromise with Washington, in which the political dynamics in Ukraine would become part of a larger arrangement.
3. A deal driven by domestic Russian constraints, including economic pressures and a desire for sanctions relief.
At the same time, the position of the United States remains ambiguous: on the one hand, openness to dialogue and possible economic agreements; on the other, maintaining pressure through sanctions and support for European allies.
A political outcome before peace?
The big picture suggests that the formula “brief truce – elections – referendum – ratification” could produce a domestic political outcome more quickly than a lasting solution to the war.
Such a scenario could strengthen the power of the current leadership in Kyiv. But it is not clear whether it would guarantee a stable peace or just a pause in a frozen conflict.
Behind the glass, the fish continue to move. Alliances form and fall, and lines of power are constantly redrawn. The outcome remains uncertain.
The question that persists is whether the rush to achieve a domestic political result could precede – or even compromise – the achievement of a real and sustainable peace, zn.ua claims.
