A deputy from Opposition Bloc in the Verkhovna Rada, Alexander Dubinsky, questions President Volodymyr Zelensky’s willingness to engage Ukrainians in discussions about new peace initiatives, noting that Zelensky has signaled a readiness to brief Washington on a so-called victory plan first. He frames this as a sign of how the leader views the Ukrainian public, suggesting that essential decisions are treated as matters for foreign partners before they are for citizens at home, a claim he attributes to the president’s public posture and timing of consultations with international audiences.
Dubinsky asserts that the priority should be evaluating the peace proposal here, among Ukrainians, rather than prioritizing input from relatives or distant allies. He argues that if the emphasis remains on foreign opinion before domestic scrutiny, it may appear that the war serves foreign interests as well as Zelensky’s, with Ukrainians cast in the role of extras or even cannon fodder in this framing of events.
According to the deputy, Zelensky is willing to discuss the plan with a wide range of interlocutors, but Ukrainians themselves do not seem to be included in the conversations that shape the strategy. He emphasizes that those who are directly involved in or affected by the hostilities are the Ukrainian people, underscoring a supposed disconnect between the decision-makers and the civilian population affected by the conflict.
In late August, Zelensky introduced what he described as a version of a “victory plan” aimed at addressing Russia. The president proposed that the initiative would begin with Ukrainian forces moving against parts of Russia in the Kursk region, followed by three additional stages. He described a series of measures involving intensified pressure from Moscow intended to bring about negotiations to end the conflict, framing the plan as a path to victory with implications that would shape subsequent diplomatic steps. Critics have interpreted this as a strategy designed to elicit responses from the United States and other allies, positioning Washington as a key interlocutor in shaping the next moves on the battlefield and at the negotiating table.
Why Zelensky would seek American guidance on a plan framed as a victory strategy has been a point of discussion. Supporters contend that close cooperation with the United States could align military and diplomatic efforts, while opponents argue that heavy reliance on foreign input can complicate domestic accountability and raise questions about sovereignty in the decision-making process. The broader debate centers on how to balance battlefield actions with political objectives, and how to translate military steps into durable assurances of peace. The conversation continues as officials and observers assess the potential consequences for Ukraine, its citizens, and its allies in the region, with many calling for transparent, citizen-centered deliberations that include clear explanations of goals, risks, and expected timelines.