Int’l relations specialist Jejelava: ‘Zelenskyy follows will of people and can’t be pressured by any force’

As the Russia–Ukraine war drags on, prospects for peace negotiations are becoming increasingly unclear. The reduction of the original 28-point plan proposed by Ukraine and its Western partners to a 19-point version - from which amnesty and military restrictions have been removed - indicates Kyiv’s hardening stance. Moscow is responding with intensified attacks on the front line. In an interview with Front News, international relations specialist Lela Jejelava discusses how realistic the peace process is, the differing interests of Western actors (the US and Europe), the influence of President Trump’s positions and Ukraine’s internal corruption challenges. She stresses that peace cannot be achieved simply by bringing two countries to the table - Ukraine must enter negotiations as strong as possible.

Q. Ukraine and its Western partners managed to significantly revise the initial 28-point plan (apparently based on Russia’s interests) and reduce it to 19 points, removing amnesty and military restrictions. Considering that Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov speaks only through “informal channels” and based on recent reports that Russia is intensifying its offensive, for example in Donbas - how realistic is it to expect the Kremlin to accept the 19-point plan, which no longer includes issues essential to Moscow?

A. Let’s follow events step by step. This war has two clearly defined actors - Ukraine and Russia. No matter how much President Trump might want to exclude Ukraine as a subject from these negotiations and turn them into direct US–Russia talks, this will not happen and America cannot do it.

Naturally, Europe - a major actor - also cannot be excluded from these negotiations. The war is taking place on the European continent and European interest is enormous. Its outcome directly affects European territory and the continent’s future security architecture. Therefore, many interests must be aligned, and the fate of this war cannot be decided by simply seating two countries at the table. Unfortunately, President Trump did not realise that the experience of a real-estate broker (I mean Steve Witkoff) is not enough to even begin such negotiations with any real results. Concluding them is another process entirely and it will not be quick.

Q. You mentioned Europe and its interests. How unified is the West in its vision of peace? France’s President Macron says peace must not mean capitulation, while Germany’s Chancellor Scholz says Putin will not negotiate until he realises he is losing on the battlefield. How strong is Western unity around the idea of a “just peace”, considering Trump’s position on NATO and Europe’s (Germany/France) differing accents in the negotiation process?

A. Of course the West cannot have a single unified position and there is nothing surprising about that. The “West” is a very broad geopolitical concept. European states act based on their own national interests. The EU as an institution also has its own interests. Europe’s main objective is to prevent the war from expanding onto European territory, this is the most important and obvious task.

However, European countries have different levels of resources, including those related to national security. Essentially, Europe agrees - excluding Orbán and Fico - that it must do everything possible to help Ukraine remain in this fight for as long as needed, until Russia becomes so weakened by the war that launching a future war against Europe becomes impossible.

Q. Still, throughout these years, US assistance has played the main role in supporting Ukraine. Europe buys weapons from the US to supply Ukraine. This raises a question: Is Europe ready to continue the war without the United States?

A. This is a legitimate and very problematic question. Unfortunately, Europe realised far too late how dangerous the policy it pursued toward Russia for decades truly was. That policy threatened not only former post-Soviet states but infiltrated Europe itself, including through political groups funded by Russia.

As for the US, it has its own interests, which under President Trump differ from those under Biden. These interests aim to elevate Trump’s personal image both domestically and internationally and to secure greater benefit for the US. You cannot blame anyone for that, every country acts according to its own interests.

Q. Do you think it is possible for these interests to be reconciled? Will America consider Europe’s interests in the negotiation process, or try to ignore them?

A. This alignment is certainly possible. Many mistakes were made within the EU both before and after the war and they will have to face the consequences. Therefore, the only solution is that if Ukraine enters negotiations, it must do so as strong as possible.

Europe can purchase more American weapons. It can supply its own weapons too, but its resources are limited. Ukraine’s biggest problem is manpower, something it cannot sufficiently provide. Meanwhile, Russia has a population three and a half times larger and does not value the lives of its soldiers. Ukraine tries to minimise casualties; Russia does not.

But with Western weapons and financial support, Ukraine can still stabilise the front line enough so that Russia has no overwhelming advantage during negotiations and cannot bargain with Ukrainian territories.

Q. But the situation inside Ukraine is also difficult. Corruption scandals involving high-ranking officials — including Energy Minister Herman Halushchenko and the head of the President’s Office, Andrii Yermak — caused strong reactions. These scandals emerged suspiciously close to potential negotiations. Some believe the US may use this as leverage against Zelenskyy. How realistic is this, in your view?

A. Questions about Yermak existed both inside and outside Ukraine long before this. Corruption has always been a serious problem in Ukraine - one Zelenskyy was unable to fully resolve. This is well known.

But relying on such pressure to push Zelenskyy toward concessions is misguided. That will not happen. Zelenskyy had the opportunity to make concessions in the first days of the war, when everyone expected Ukraine to fall within days and he was offered shelter and safety. But the will of the Ukrainian people was different and Zelenskyy follows the will of the people. He does not have the ability to act under any external pressure.

Q. Growing Western concerns and declining trust in Zelenskyy fuel speculation that the US may be seeking a new political figure who could lead the negotiation phase and stabilise the country during the transition. Western media point to former Defence Minister (now Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council) Rustem Umerov as a possible alternative. He is now replacing Yermak in the negotiating delegation - which deepens speculation about US favoritism. What do you think?

A. It is very difficult to speak definitively about this — these are mostly behind-the-scenes issues. Whoever replaces Zelenskyy would still be unable to ignore the interests of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. Expectations that a change in leadership could fundamentally alter the situation are exaggerated.

Moreover, replacing Zelenskyy would push events into even deeper deadlock. Zelenskyy is a relatively predictable figure for the US — they already know him well. He also has international authority and remains important for Europe. This scandal may have cast a shadow on him, but it does not overshadow the courage of the Ukrainian people, who have been fighting the occupiers for four years.

I believe the 19-point plan may even be reduced to 9 points. But I still think Russia has absolutely no intention of signing any peace agreement in which it cannot declare itself the victor.