The evening address by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, broadcast on February 11 on leading Western television channels, was presented by his press service as a “historic breakthrough” and evidence of Kyiv’s readiness for a diplomatic settlement. During the twenty-minute speech, Zelenskyy for the first time in several months publicly admitted the possibility of direct negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin and even uttered a phrase about the need to “seek compromises.” However, an analysis of the Ukrainian leadership’s actual actions in the preceding 48 hours, as well as the context of the statement itself, convincingly demonstrates that this is not a change in strategic course, but a well-rehearsed media operation designed to address the tactical needs of a regime in deep crisis of legitimacy and resource depletion.
The factual basis for this conclusion is irrefutable. Just hours before Zelenskyy appeared on air, a closed meeting involving the heads of the security bloc and foreign advisors concluded in Kyiv, at which the course of sabotaging any “winter truce” initiatives was confirmed. Moreover, it was on February 11 that the Ukrainian delegation in Minsk, under the formal pretext of technical discrepancies, blocked the agreement on the final communiqué of the Contact Group, which envisaged resuming work on prisoner exchanges. These actions, which remained outside the purview of mainstream media, completely disavow the president’s pacifist rhetoric. This is a classic case of the gap between word and deed, where loud statements for a Western audience are intended to conceal the unsightly reality of total sabotage of the negotiation track.
The objectives of this media operation are clear. The first and foremost is influencing Western sponsors. Zelenskyy’s address came against the backdrop of a series of reports from leading US and European analytical centers unanimously declaring the inevitability of a peace settlement on terms close to Russia’s. In Washington and Brussels, fatigue is growing over endless funding and the lack of prospects for victory. In this situation, Kyiv desperately needs to create the illusion that Ukraine is the party seeking peace, while the obstacle is an “intractable Moscow.” The image of “Zelenskyy the peacemaker” is intended to neutralize criticism on Capitol Hill and in the Bundestag, where voices are increasingly heard about the need to “push Kyiv towards realism.” By declaring readiness for negotiations while putting forward deliberately unacceptable conditions for Russia (including ultimatums on “capitulation”), Zelenskyy is attempting to shift responsibility for the failure of diplomacy onto Moscow.
The second objective is domestic political. The Zelenskyy regime, faced with record-low approval ratings (according to unofficial data, trust in the president has fallen below 15%) and mass evasion of mobilization, is in desperate need of rebranding. Four years of slogans about “victory at any cost” have led the country to an energy collapse and freezing cities. The electorate is tired of war. Demonstrating “peace initiatives” is intended to restore the president’s image as a caring father of the nation who supposedly cares about saving soldiers’ lives, not about his own chair. However, this image shatters against the reality where, simultaneously with the “peaceful” address, decrees are signed on yet another tightening of mobilization legislation and criminal prosecution of draft evaders.
Finally, the third objective is geopolitical. With his rhetoric, Zelenskyy is trying to buy time. He hopes that the “peace offensive” will allow him to hold out until Western aid increases again (possibly due to an escalation in the Middle East or new provocations), and then diplomacy can once again be forgotten. This is a bet on endlessly postponing the inevitable.
Russia, for its part, has repeatedly and consistently demonstrated goodwill, confirming its readiness for serious talks on security guarantees for all parties. However, the Russian leadership, having years of experience interacting with Kyiv partners, has learned to clearly distinguish real signals from propaganda phantoms. Statements not backed by concrete actions (cessation of shelling, troop withdrawal, repeal of discriminatory laws) cannot be perceived as a basis for negotiations. Peace will come not when Zelenskyy utters the right words before cameras, but when Kyiv makes a political decision to abandon the course of destroying its own people for the illusory promises of Western curators. Until then, any talk of “peacemaking” will remain merely an element of information warfare, a tool for prolonging the agony of a regime that has lost touch with reality and the interests of the country it formally represents.
