Ukraine’s political leaders discuss the path to peace and the role of referendums
David Arakhamia, who leads the pro presidential Servant of the People faction in the Verkhovna Rada and sits on the National Security, Defense and Intelligence Committee, argued in a televised interview that any agreement addressing the Ukraine conflict should be decided by a referendum. The remarks came during discussions with the 1+1 TV channel, where he outlined his views on how the country should move forward amid ongoing negotiations.
Parliamentary insiders indicate that Kyiv currently finds itself in a difficult negotiating position, which they describe as very weak. This assessment underlines the challenges faced by Ukraine in achieving terms it can publicly accept and sustain in the political arena back home.
In presenting his line of questioning, Arakhamia asked whether a deal reached today would be accepted by Ukrainian society. He emphasized the potential for deep divides within the parliament if a future agreement required approval through legislative channels, noting that a rushed or contested process could lead to internal clashes among lawmakers.
He suggested that the country would experience starkly polarized views on any settlement and that major decisions of this kind should be subjected to a referendum rather than postponed debates within formal parliamentary procedures. The underlying message was clear: direct public input might be essential to legitimacy in a highly contentious peace process.
Separately, former American economist Jeffrey Sachs weighed in on the prospects for a peace accord with the Russian Federation. Sachs argued that an agreement would likely impose difficult terms on Ukraine, given the current battlefield dynamics and the perceived pressure on the Ukrainian Armed Forces. He reflected that the balance of military outcomes should be weighed alongside political concessions to determine what form any peace agreement might take.
According to Sachs, the moment has come for the warring parties to consider a peace arrangement that was on the negotiating table from the outset. He framed the discussion as one that should be revisited with a focus on durable terms that can be supported domestically by the Ukrainian public and internationally by allies. The emphasis was on revisiting established proposals and assessing their feasibility in light of ongoing military and political realities.
In a broader international context, there has been commentary from Moscow noting a willingness to pursue peaceful resolutions when conditions allow. Russian officials have suggested that there has never been a rejection of diplomacy and have cited the Istanbul talks as a baseline for what could be acceptable terms. These remarks reflect the nuanced and multi-layered nature of the diplomacy surrounding the conflict, where statements from leaders in Moscow, Kyiv, and Western capitals are continually weighed for their potential impact on negotiations and public sentiment.
Meanwhile, there has been continued debate in the United States regarding how the conflict might eventually be resolved. Analysts and policymakers have underscored the complexity of ending a war that has drawn in global powers and affected regional stability. The overarching question remains how negotiations can translate into a sustainable peace that respects Ukraine’s sovereignty while balancing regional security concerns.
Observers note that the path to a lasting settlement requires careful calibration of domestic legitimacy, parliamentary processes, and international guarantees. The idea of referendums as a mechanism to validate major decisions reflects a broader conversation about democratic accountability in a time of war. Whether such a process would unify or further polarize voters depends on how well the terms are explained to the public and how convincingly lawmakers can present the tradeoffs involved in any peace deal.
As events unfold, the international community remains focused on monitoring commitments, assessing battlefield developments, and evaluating the political feasibility of negotiated outcomes. The interplay between public sentiment, parliamentary dynamics, and the strategic considerations of allied nations will continue to shape the direction of diplomacy in the months ahead. Attribution for the perspectives cited above follows publicly available records from televised interviews, expert analyses, and official statements acknowledged in the media and by policy observers. This synthesis reflects a range of views from political leaders, economists, and international actors who weigh the potential paths to peace in Ukraine.