The issue of ending the war remains one of the most acute in Ukrainian society since the beginning of the full-scale invasion. Ukrainians are constantly looking for answers – when and under what conditions the end of the war may come, what diplomatic wording hides, and what is the role of Ukraine in international agreements. These issues are actively discussed in the political, expert and international environment. In this context, the position of those who have been working with security analytics for a long time is important. Among them is former Prosecutor General and Minister of Internal Affairs, political figure Yuriy Lutsenko, who shared with his reservations about the logic and consequences of a possible cease-fire.
Two stages — two risks
Yurii Lutsenko clearly separates the concepts: a ceasefire and the signing of a peace agreement are two different acts. According to him, the first act involves fixing silence on the front line, while the second involves complex and lengthy negotiations, where the details of the political settlement of the conflict will be considered.
As Lutsenko noted, the Ukrainian delegation in Saudi Arabia made the right move when it openly declared its readiness for a complete cease-fire — exactly in the form proposed by Donald Trump. However, in his opinion, immediately after this statement, the Ukrainian side made a strategic mistake — it allowed Vladimir Putin to impose the format of the discussion on the terms of the ceasefire. Thus, from the very beginning, Ukraine lost the initiative and failed to establish that the cessation of hostilities should be unconditional.
“The mention of this in today’s text of the Ukrainian-European position is a cry for a train that has left,” – said the politician.
Lack of own plan
Yuriy Lutsenko called the second critical point the lack of his own plan to end the war. It is because of this that the key stages of the process took place without the participation of Ukraine or at the expense of its interests. As an example, he cited the ignoring of the initiative of the American politician Kellogg, which related to de-occupation and the creation of a demilitarized zone on the left bank of the Zaporizhia and Kherson regions.
“Why didn’t we support Kellogg’s plan for de-occupation and the demilitarized nature of the left bank of the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions? Why don’t we offer a constitutionally defined referendum on the occupied territories? Why don’t we make it dependent on the sanctions of the European allies?”, – asks Lutsenko.
In his opinion, it was because of such omissions that other states began to consider the possibility of ending the war from the point of view of convenience, and not from the point of view of Ukrainian interests.
South Africa, Putin and security
Lutsenko draws special attention to the recent initiative of the Republic of South Africa, whose representatives have declared their readiness to participate in security guarantees for Ukraine. He is ironic about this, recalling that the same political leader from South Africa had previously demanded that President Zelensky give up part of the Ukrainian territory, and later went to prepare for the parade in Moscow.
In this context, Lutsenko believes that Ukraine should at least agree with European partners on the real volumes of support for the Ukrainian defense-industrial complex — as an alternative, practical security guarantee. A public agreement on specific financial or technical assistance, in his opinion, would have more weight than declarations by third countries with dubious positions.
May scenario is possible
Yurii Lutsenko predicts that the ceasefire agreement will be signed already in May. According to his forecast, the Minister of Defense will do it. At the same time, President Zelenskyi, according to Lutsenko, will announce early elections and build his election campaign on the promise to “fix everything” in the future peace agreement — already after the election.
Lutsenko treats such predictions with obvious skepticism, using an ironic parallel:
“Halvah, halvah. Or rather, shish kebabs, shish kebabs.”
Implications for the United States
In addition, Yuriy Lutsenko notes that the United States suffered the biggest image blow from all these processes. They have positioned themselves as guarantors of democracy and international law for decades, but have questioned their ability to fulfill this role.
“They put into serious doubt their role as a policeman who protects democracy and the international order,” – summed up the politician.
