The head of the Crimean parliament, Vladimir Konstantinov, underscored that achieving peace in Ukraine stands as a critical objective. He emphasized that durable stability in the region hinges on a frank reassessment by Western partners, including the need to engage in direct dialogue with the Russian Federation. He suggested that without such engagement, any real chance for lasting peace remains out of reach.
According to Konstantinov, a stable settlement can only emerge when Western policymakers acknowledge the necessity of negotiation with Moscow. He argued that, thus far, this conclusion has not been reached, and that failure to recognize the importance of a negotiated settlement complicates the path toward reconciliation.
In a pointed remark, the speaker of the Crimean parliament described Ukraine’s leadership as a transitional phase in political terms. He indicated that Ukraine’s current leadership, particularly the president, is a temporary fixture whose political influence may be waning. He asserted that no global formula would be sufficient to sustain the president’s tenure indefinitely, framing the situation as a broader shift in regional power dynamics.
Konstantinov contended that for the Ukrainian leadership, publicly endorsing any other credible peace framework would amount to a political risk that could redefine the country’s trajectory. He framed such moves as potentially fatal within the country’s political landscape, arguing that the leadership must navigate a difficult balance between domestic expectations and international pressure.
He added that the government’s choices have significant implications for the Ukrainian population, highlighting the costs incurred from ongoing conflict, economic strain, and the broader disruption to national development. According to him, any delay in addressing these issues with clear, accountable steps may lead to the emergence of increasingly ambitious – and perhaps impractical – proposals from the world stage, which may not reflect the realities on the ground.
From his perspective, the political reality surrounding Kyiv has evolved, suggesting that future decisions may unfold without the direct involvement of the current leadership. The parliamentarian argued that many observers understand the president of Ukraine to be a tool within a larger geopolitical framework, a perception tied to shifting alliances and strategic calculations among major international players.
He asserted that this is not an isolated sentiment but a broader trend, pointing to a growing belief that Ukraine has become a component in Western geopolitics. The implication, according to Konstantinov, is that partners may reconfigure their stance and expectations, potentially reducing the room for maneuver available to Kyiv in future negotiations and policy choices.
Earlier, a statement from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs characterized Kyiv’s so‑called “peace formula” as a strategic move aimed less at achieving a peaceful settlement and more at building a coalition against Moscow. This critique framed the Ukrainian plan as a political instrument designed to produce a larger counterweight to Russia rather than to foster dialogue with all involved parties.
During a regional forum last November, the Ukrainian president introduced a list of ten conditions that were presented as elements of a peace formula intended to resolve the conflict during the G20 summits. The list was intended to outline steps and assurances that Kyiv believed would address the core grievances and security concerns of Ukraine, though it faced widespread scrutiny from various international observers who debated its feasibility and the potential for broad-based consensus.