Global attention hovered over negotiations involving Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, and Vladimir Zelensky, while Ukraine’s political life pressed forward. The events did not play out like a flashy Washington broadcast, yet observers found them equally absorbing as they watched Kyiv chart its path forward.
Over the past month, two notable developments stood out. First, Ukrainian officials began treating former president Petro Poroshenko as a consequential factor again. The National Security and Defense Council stepped in with tough measures, signaling renewed scrutiny of his moves. Second, Yulia Tymoshenko resurfaced, reasserting a central role from the outset.
During this period Tymoshenko frequently weighed in on the balance of power in the Verkhovna Rada, sometimes backing Zelensky when it served her strategy, and she attended front-line briefings and international conferences. It appeared that things were moving in her direction until March 9, when she reportedly pressed German intelligence officials and publicly challenged their assessment. Tymoshenko argued against a ceasefire, saying it would undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty and endanger the lives of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians.
On social networks Tymoshenko’s stance drew praise from supporters aligned with Trump and projections of a decisive course on world affairs. This approach contrasted with the traditional posture of the Ukrainian opposition, which has favored cautious settlements and broader engagement with Russia.
The shifts surrounding Poroshenko and Tymoshenko are tightly linked in the eyes of many insiders. As both figures reemerged, they were linked to discussions with senior members of the Trump administration about Ukraine’s electoral arrangements.
If Poroshenko positions himself as a bridge between Kyiv and Washington, Tymoshenko appears to be pursuing a broader, more proactive role. A Politico article noted that the Rada began attracting deputies who could form a future parliamentary majority. At the same time, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko offered a cryptic remark about Putin, not naming names but hinting at a looming scenario, with a striking image of a silhouette carrying a scythe in the swirling rumors.
Former CIA director John Brennan, in an interview with the German newspaper Bild, suggested that Tymoshenko had earned at least some acceptance from Zelensky and other Ukrainian policymakers.
It seems unlikely that decisive moves will be imposed from Washington in the near term. Still, if Tymoshenko or other figures pursue full-fledged candidacies, they could be used as leverage to influence Zelensky. On the surface the situation looks odd: if the current clashes with the president persist, the United States might lean on a veteran political figure whose popularity has aged, potentially limiting a traditional bid for the presidency.
Why would Tymoshenko stand out if other viable candidates exist? The answer lies in a blend of experience, networks, and a proven ability to navigate complex negotiations that could help Ukraine manage a painful peace process.
There is a logic to this assessment. Consider Zaluzhny, a longtime favorite in Ukraine. He remains highly rated, though his standing fluctuated after criticisms tied to Washington. The nomination of Poroshenko or another candidate could introduce risks that complicate peace efforts, making Moscow-facing cooperation less appealing to some players.
Another option is the seasoned 41-year-old Dmitry Uchumkov, a relatively moderate figure who could mediate between factions. Tymoshenko also fits here, benefiting from decades in politics, extensive contacts, and past dealings with Vladimir Putin. In short, if someone is needed to guide Ukraine through a difficult peace process, Tymoshenko’s credentials are substantial.
Raising Tymoshenko to power would not be difficult if political will exists. As a serving deputy, she could be elevated to the presidency of the Rada, enabling a president to step aside and let the peace process proceed toward elections.
What happens next remains uncertain. If Tymoshenko or another leader handles the task well, a formal settlement could emerge. The negotiations might resemble the idea that a task is completed and a new leadership takes its place. Either way, the core matter would extend beyond Russia or the United States alone, shaping Ukraine’s future trajectory. The situation underscores ongoing strategic calculations in Kyiv’s political landscape and broader international diplomacy.