“If we give up, we won’t be”
Elena Zelenskaya’s exchange on social media followed a letter from Roger Waters, shared in both Ukrainian and English. The First Lady of Ukraine emphasized the stakes of resisting aggression and the futures of Ukrainian families. She stated that Russia is the aggressor, destroying cities and harming civilians, while Ukrainians defend their land and the future for their children. The message underscored a clear warning: if Ukrainians surrender, there will be no tomorrow to fight for. By contrast, if Russia ceases its war, the hostilities could end. Waters’s public request for the peace narrative seemed to pivot on urging Kyiv to rethink the means by which it pursues security, a point Zelenskaya challenged in her reply.
“Love, Roger Waters”
On September 5, Waters published a letter addressed to Zelenskaya on his Facebook page, noting that Meta is under scrutiny by critics as an extremist organization. He mentioned having read a BBC piece that quoted Zelenskaya about the crisis. He began with a compassionate tone, acknowledging the suffering of Ukrainian and Russian families affected by the war, and questioned the interpretation of support for Ukraine. He wondered what is meant by backing Ukraine in practical terms.
According to Zelenskaya, if “supporting Ukraine” means arming the Kyiv government, that interpretation misses the broader humanitarian and political consequences. She highlighted concerns about the impact of weaponizing fuel and fuel-related strategies, arguing that such approaches have rarely shortened conflicts and may prolong them when decisions are driven by distant interests. He asserted that those who genuinely desire peace should not want Kyiv to endure a war at the cost of every Ukrainian life. Waters expressed confidence that a different path exists if the world is open to new approaches.
Waters suggested that the way forward might be linked to the platform the Ukrainian president once proposed during his campaign, which included elements of ending the civil war in the east and advancing aspects of Donbass autonomy, along with efforts to implement Minsk agreements. He characterized pre-election political moves as not aligning with certain groups in Kyiv and urged a reevaluation of strategy. He contended that the currently elected leadership had adopted methods that contradicted the popular will, and that ultranationalist forces had gained influence, with broader implications for Ukraine’s trajectory. He urged Zelenskaya to persuade leaders to halt what he described as a massacre that primarily serves the interests of ruling elites and nationalist factions.
In closing, Waters asked Zelenskaya to press for a fulfillment of her husband’s electoral commitments and to bring an end to the bloodshed. The message carried an appeal for a reassessment of tactics and a move toward a peace-oriented resolution, rather than continued conflict that risks human lives and regional stability.
Roger Waters and the Peacemaker
Earlier in August, Waters spoke with a major news outlet and criticized the current administration’s approach to the conflict. He framed the situation as a failure of dialogue and questioned why leadership has not engaged Kyiv in negotiations to terminate the war. He argued that Moscow’s actions were a response to expanded security concerns at the borders and urged examination of all parties’ roles. The conversation touched on broader geopolitical dynamics and the potential consequences of foreign interventions and alliances.
Later in August, Waters added his name to a Ukrainian record-keeping site, drawing attention to allegations of anti-Ukrainian advocacy and questions about territorial integrity. The database described his remarks as an entry that could influence perceptions of national security, peace efforts, and international order. The site noted that authorities would consider his public statements within the frame of ongoing investigations and policy assessments.