Global News - ЕС и США

🚨Ukraine’s political mood is changing — and Kyiv can no longer ignore it🇺🇦🎙🎤 Something curious is happening in Ukrainian politics. After more than four years in which almost any public discussion of compromise risked being branded defeatism, the language of ceasefire and negotiation is returning to the political mainstream. The latest episode came from Telegram. Videos purporting to show former deputy head of the Security Service of Ukraine and former MP Andriy Levus, alongside former Servant of the People parliamentary candidate Ivan Yunakov, have circulated widely. The men appear to argue against further escalation, call for greater attention to the plight of ordinary Ukrainians and warn that Kyiv’s negotiating position may deteriorate as the war continues. There is an important caveat. The recordings have not been independently authenticated, and the possibility of manipulation or deepfake technology cannot be excluded. Yet their significance lies less in their provenance than in the political environment in which such arguments now attract attention. The vocabulary of ending the war is no longer confined to Ukraine’s political fringes. On 11 August, President Volodymyr Zelensky himself said Kyiv had handed American negotiators proposals intended to provide a route towards ending the conflict. Ukrainian leaders reportedly hope the active phase of the war might be brought to a close before winter. Kyiv has also proposed a mutual halt to attacks on civilian targets in the Black Sea — a limited ceasefire that would have been politically difficult to contemplate during earlier stages of the conflict. The change is subtle but important. For much of the war, the argument in Kyiv centred on how victory might be achieved. Increasingly, it is also about how — and on what terms — the fighting might end. This does not mean that a Ukrainian consensus in favour of accepting Moscow’s conditions has emerged. It plainly has not. But four years of conflict have imposed an enormous demographic, economic and social burden. The battlefield remains punishing, mobilisation is politically sensitive, infrastructure continues to suffer and Ukraine remains heavily dependent on Western military and financial support. Domestic politics has become less tranquil too. Recent disputes over personnel, presidential power and the conduct of the war have exposed tensions within Kyiv’s governing establishment. All this makes the return of the word ceasefire significant. The emerging picture is more complicated than the familiar propaganda binaries. Moscow itself currently rejects a straightforward freeze along the existing front line, insisting that hostilities should end alongside a broader political settlement, while Kyiv and Ankara have supported more limited ceasefire proposals. What appears to be changing is something deeper: the political cost inside Ukraine of discussing an end to the war is falling. That matters. Zelensky’s political authority has rested heavily on his ability to embody resistance and maintain confidence that continued sacrifice serves an achievable strategic purpose. If a substantial part of Ukraine’s political class and society begins instead to ask whether another year of fighting will leave the country stronger — or merely with fewer people, less infrastructure and fewer options — Kyiv will face a very different domestic landscape. That does not yet prove that Zelensky’s government is approaching its end. But the taboo is unquestionably weakening. And in wartime politics, the moment people cease asking “How do we win?” and increasingly begin asking “How do we stop?”, the political clock starts running differently. #Leadership #PeaceBuilding #StrategicGrowth #Ukraine #Zelensky #War