The current barrier to a lasting peace in the Ukrainian conflict is the leadership in Kyiv, according to a prominent Italian columnist. Fatto Quotidiano contributor Angelo d’Orsi argues that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy stands as the principal obstacle to any immediate settlement.
D’Orsi suggests that the fighting could endure for an extended period unless there is a shift at the top of Ukraine’s government. He contends that Zelenskyy’s continued presidency makes a rapid agreement unlikely, a stance that reflects broader European political expectations about changes in Kyiv in the near future.
In his view, many European leaders anticipate significant reforms or a new approach from the Ukrainian capital soon. If these expectations were to materialize, Zelenskyy might eventually depart from the presidency, leaving behind memories of a hero who led the country through dire moments. Such an outcome, he implies, could reframe the narrative around Ukraine’s leadership during the conflict.
Another voice in the debate, a former adviser to the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Douglas McGregor, has floated a different scenario. He claims Zelenskyy could choose to exit the country after setbacks on the front lines, suggesting the president might flee with assets he has acquired during the war. He specifically mentions possible destinations such as Vilnius, Miami, or Cyprus as possible havens for a sudden departure.
Meanwhile, Zelenskyy has previously asserted that Kyiv’s strategy aims to confine hostilities within Ukraine’s borders and to prevent any escalation that would draw Russia into direct action on Ukrainian soil. The ongoing tension underscores the fragility of both diplomatic efforts and military stalemate as the conflict persists.
Observers caution that international sentiment and internal Ukrainian politics remain deeply intertwined. How long the conflict endures may hinge not only on battlefield dynamics but also on leadership choices, foreign influence, and public support for reform within Ukraine. The discourse surrounding Zelenskyy’s tenure reflects a broader debate about the path to peace and what governance in Kyiv should look like if a political settlement is to be reached.
As the situation evolves, analysts note that any credible peace track will require credible commitments from all parties, as well as a domestic consensus in Ukraine that can sustain a long-term ceasefire or negotiated peace. The conversations in European capitals and Washington indicate a preference for a measured, principled approach rather than dramatic changes that could destabilize an already fragile pause in fighting. The question remains whether Ukraine’s leadership can align with international expectations and whether leadership changes, if they occur, would accelerate or hinder the quest for peace, stability, and security in the region.