Statements about peace: What’s wrong? Interview with Honcharenko
A few weeks ago, Ukrainian MP Oleksii Honcharenko made headlines by declaring: we need to negotiate with Russia. For this, he was expelled from the European Solidarity faction and accused of working for the Kremlin and the White House, populism, and cheap manipulation. What really lies behind his actions? How did his transformation come about? Is he Putin’s agent? Which Republicans is he in contact with? How did he and Poroshenko part ways? We asked him about all this in an extensive interview.
"THIS IS MADNESS!" WHY HONCHARENKO DOES NOT CRITICISE TRUMP
- In your view, what is Vladimir Putin’s goal in this war?
- The destruction of all of Ukraine. The conquest of Ukraine. Or turning Ukraine into Vladimir Putin’s puppet.
- On October 11, Donald Trump announced a so-called "energy truce". Throughout these days, we have experienced firsthand how Russia is "observing" it. Even though Zelenskyy said he was ready to abide by it. Doesn’t this prove that any such agreements with Russia are meaningless?
- No, it does not. Clearly, there is no agreement. After I announced my plan, I was accused of populism, among other things. But if this really is such great, rewarding populism, why haven’t dozens or hundreds of Ukrainian politicians and MPs done the same? Because it is not that simple. I am already paying the price for it — through my expulsion from the faction and the utterly insane inclusion of my name in the Myrotvorets database.
But I’ll tell you what real populism is. Politicians and government officials currently stand to gain a lot from openly criticising the US president. Because everyone is outraged by his words and actions. And this can earn them likes and applause. There is just one problem: it does nothing to help Ukraine — on the contrary, it harms Ukraine. When some councillor named Buchko from the Lviv Regional Council proposes an appeal to Trump and the entire Lviv Regional Council votes for it, well, that is madness. It is just like in the days of the Soviet Union — some collective farmers condemning Washington’s militarists and the Pentagon.
- Please explain your stance on Donald Trump’s actions.
- The US is our key ally. We cannot afford to lose it. Some say the US has already entered into an alliance with Russia against Ukraine — that is madness. If, God forbid, this happens, the consequences for Ukraine will be catastrophic. That has not happened, and I am confident it will not.
On one broadcast, an MP from Servant of the People said: "Trump and his sons-in-law…" He was referring to Kushner. I said: "Have you lost your mind?! Do you want all this to be used against us?" We will achieve nothing this way. Do you think you will scare Trump? No, you will only push him away for good. And not just Trump. Because when you attack Trump and his administration today, you are effectively getting involved in US elections on the side of their opponents. You are attacking the entire Republican Party. That makes this the worst possible form of populism. Populism that we pay for with people’s lives
It turns out that without the Americans, we have nothing to shoot down ballistic missiles with. We have no intelligence; we do not even know what is flying, where it is coming from, or where it is heading. So what right do we have to quarrel with them? When ordinary people write in their posts that they are outraged, I understand them perfectly. But when MPs and ministers do it, they should have their arms and legs ripped off for it. Including our president.
- You began by saying that the US is our key ally. How do you assess what our key ally has done?
- I don’t like what President Trump is doing right now: announcing a truce that Russia clearly has not agreed to. And clearly, this truce is not being observed. But if I criticise him now, I will get 10 supportive comments, while none of us will gain anything useful from it. To change the situation, we need to go to the US, not criticise Trump. Talk to him. Talk not to "sons-in-law" but to Jared Kushner, Steven Witkoff and Rubio, to congressmen and senators. In every new interview, Zelenskyy says that Trump has made a weak decision. For Trump, those are the worst possible words. Especially on the eve of elections. This is bad.
- But isn’t that, in fact, true?
- You shouldn’t say it. Very often, there are things that the president and people in positions of responsibility cannot say, even when they are true.
"SO WHY DID YOU DECIDE TO EAT ZELENSKYY’S SHIT?" HONCHARENKO’S TRANSFORMATION
- Let’s talk about your transformation. I would like to understand how it happened. There is a clip of your speech from the rostrum of the Verkhovna Rada. In it, you say: "We have seen yet another ultimatum from the mad Kremlin dictator: ‘no NATO, recognise Crimea and demilitarisation’, meaning you surrender your weapons, and then I will do whatever I want with you. We know this choice between dishonour and war very well from history. And we know that by choosing dishonour, you also choose war, but an even worse one. That is why we will never give in to these ultimatums."
- It is very important to state the date of that speech.
- I think it was in 2022?
- I think so too.
- And I also think that the Oleksii Honcharenko back then and the one today are different people. Because if we follow the logic of the Oleksii Honcharenko of that time, today’s Honcharenko is proposing dishonour?
- No.
- Please explain.
- Today’s Honcharenko is proposing Ukraine’s survival under extremely difficult conditions. Excuse me, but it was not Oleksii Honcharenko who, between 2022 and 2026, was sending "two million dollars" to Moscow and allowed corruption in the country to reach such a level that the whole world now knows about it. It was not Oleksii Honcharenko’s friends who fled Ukraine with bags of money and settled somewhere on various warm and not-so-warm shores. And it was not Oleksii Honcharenko who turned the country into a country run by five or six managers, sidelining all the professionals and sidelining institutions. One person did all of this. His name is Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Unfortunately, we had different opportunities in 2022. I believe now, as I did then, that in 2022 we really had a chance to fully liberate our territory. Today, we have no such chance. And failing to acknowledge that is madness.
- Were the Armed Forces of Ukraine stronger in 2022 than they are now?
- Of course. In 2022, relative to the Russian army, the Armed Forces of Ukraine were stronger than they are today, in 2026.
- And were the weapons and equipment better too?
- Of course. It is all relative. In 2022, the comparison between the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the Russian army favoured the Armed Forces of Ukraine. In 2026, that is not the case. In 2022, the Ukrainian economy, Ukrainian society, Ukraine’s political standing, and our diplomatic standing were better. And clearly, Joseph Biden was a better US president for us than Donald Trump is now.
- When did you begin to realise that there was no longer any chance and that you needed to enter negotiations you had previously ruled out?
- For the past year and a half, I have been saying everywhere that we need peace immediately, that we need to negotiate, and that every day the war continues brings Ukraine nothing but losses. But the response was: "All right, what is your plan?" And I realised that, indeed, if I say A, I have to say B. If I say there must be peace, I have to explain how we can achieve it. That is precisely what I have now set out.
- Was there a particular event that made you start thinking along these lines?
- Yes. The failure of the counteroffensive. The summer of 2023. I am saying unpleasant things, and I understand that unpleasant things provoke unpleasant reactions. Some of my colleagues, opposition politicians, ask me: "Why did you decide to eat Zelenskyy’s shit?" Well, because this is his responsibility; he is the one who brought us to this point. Let him come out and explain to the public that there will be no coffee on the Yalta waterfront, that it will not be over in two or three weeks, but that peace will be difficult. But there are two problems. First: who says he is going to, forgive me for quoting this, eat this shit? I don’t think he intends to do it at all. And the second problem: what does political responsibility mean, then? Waiting for someone else to say the difficult things when I see, understand, and believe what I am saying?
HONCHARENKO’S PLAN: LIFTING SANCTIONS ON RUSSIA
- Let’s go through the points on which you believe an agreement can be reached with Russia. You propose partially lifting sanctions. At the same time, you yourself say this will give the Kremlin more money for war. Why do you think Russia will not use this money to regroup and attack again?
- It will. What happens next depends on what security guarantees we obtain as part of the agreement. On what we do once the war ends. If all the chaos currently prevailing in the country continues, we will, of course, grow weaker. But if we change, we will, of course, grow stronger.
On sanctions. This is very important. The process of unilaterally lifting sanctions on Russia, without anyone consulting us, has already begun. It is very fashionable right now to talk about the US and diesel. But let’s talk about the European Union, which lifted sanctions on Usmanov and Fridman. Let’s talk about the United Kingdom. It is a major ally of ours, which lifted sanctions on Russian kerosene at the beginning of the year, when events in Iran began to unfold, and it needed to do so. Estonia! One of the countries that support us most, because they feel directly threatened by Russia. Estonia secured the exclusion of a huge Russian company and its management from the latest sanctions list because it benefits Estonia. Then came the US move on diesel. There are two things we can do. Express outrage, which changes nothing. Or we can say: "Okay, you want to lift sanctions? Go ahead, but then give us something too. If you are giving Russian petroleum products access to the global market, give Ukrainian grain access to the global market; stop the strikes on Odesa’s ports."
- If they can reach an agreement on this without us, why should they take us into account?
- Because then there is a certain political cost for them. It will be easier for them. For example, Trump could ask Zelenskyy: "Volodymyr Zelenskyy, do you object to this (lifting restrictions on diesel - ed.)?" Volodymyr Zelenskyy says: "I have no objection, because President Trump secured the opening of the Black Sea in return…"
HONCHARENKO’S PLAN: SECURITY GUARANTEES
- You say Russia will use the money to grow stronger and attack again. And that what happens next depends on our security guarantees. What security guarantees do you mean?
- Russia will obviously use it to grow stronger. But whether it attacks us depends on security guarantees and on the state we are in. The key security guarantee is strong Armed Forces. And for our Armed Forces to be strong, we need money. Because the Ukrainian economy has been devastated…
- Do you know what bothers me most about your position, Oleksii? You seem to start from the premise that Putin is ready to negotiate, while Zelenskyy or Ukraine are not.
- It says nothing of the kind!
- But that is precisely the impression I get.
- That is an impression. I do not know where it comes from. Nowhere do I claim that my plan will work. I do not know that. But I do maintain that if we do not try, we will certainly achieve nothing. And another thing: I am not calling for an end to armed resistance. On the contrary, I stress that this is only possible while the Armed Forces of Ukraine hold the front line. Because if, God forbid, the front collapses, Putin will not discuss anything with us. He will finish us off.
HONCHARENKO’S PLAN: WHY WILL PUTIN AGREE?
- What grounds do you have for believing that Putin will agree to such arrangements?
– Experience. Unfortunately, we cannot reach a comprehensive peace agreement. One of the key problems is Donbas. We have hit an impasse over it and are making no progress. Our negotiators have been travelling for a year and a half… By the way, why has the Ukrainian delegation been travelling back and forth for a year and a half, then? We are holding negotiations, after all!
- Yes. We are. And Putin refuses.
- We are now at an impasse over Donbas.
- Yes, Putin says no agreements are possible until Ukraine withdraws its troops from all of Donbas, including the territory Russia has not yet captured.
- The argument you have just made no longer holds. Because agreements already exist without Ukraine withdrawing from anywhere. We regularly reach agreements on prisoner exchanges. We reached an agreement in 2022 and opened up the Black Sea. And that is exactly what I am talking about. Since we cannot reach a comprehensive agreement, let’s break the problem down into a series of relatively small issues. For example, the sea. Energy. Then we can achieve partial de-escalation in the air.
- But there was already an agreement at sea.
- Then let’s return to it!
- But the Russians are violating the agreements at sea.
- Iryna, that was three months ago. And there is a separate, rather unpleasant story about how it was violated. If it was still working three months ago, that means it can work today too. But that requires work: bringing in Turkey, Egypt, the African Union, everyone with an interest in Ukrainian grain reaching global markets. And the guarantor on this specific issue will not be Putin. He does not need it. The guarantors will be those who have leverage over Putin.
- But your rhetoric suggests that even these small agreements are impossible because Ukraine opposes them
- Because Ukraine is not pursuing this path!
- …whereas I believe these agreements are impossible because Putin opposes them. And that is shifting the focus.
- No, it is not shifting the focus. It is called "let’s try".
- Yes, but who is against it? Are Zelenskyy and Budanov really sitting there thinking: "No, we won’t agree to a grain corridor deal with them!"? That is not what is happening!
- Let’s take a specific example. Ships kept sailing. And which grain carrier was the first to be hit? A Russian grain carrier was hit.
- So we violated the truce?
- The truce was broken in 2023, because that was when Russia withdrew from it. But afterwards there was a tacit, unofficial truce — an agreement not to attack each other’s ships. When it comes to the grain trade, unfortunately, Ukraine was the first to strike a grain carrier. I understand there was a desire to hurt Russia. I want to hurt Russia. But it turned out that this then came back to hurt us even more.
That is the first part. The second part of my answer. Where is our negotiating team working in Turkey? Turkey is capable of organising these negotiations. We have one four-person negotiating team: Foreign Intelligence Service chief Umerov, Kyslytsia, Arakhamia and Budanov. But we should have ten teams of four. One working in Turkey on maritime issues, another in Qatar on energy, another somewhere else.
- I will ask again. Why do I get the impression that you are attacking the Ukrainian authorities for refusing these negotiations, rather than Putin for refusing?
- But Putin doesn’t want anything!
- Then how can he be forced to agree?
- Through the power of that same Turkey. Because Putin needs to talk to both Arab and African countries. That is called diplomacy.
- Yesterday, I listened to Putin’s Valdai speech again. The same arguments again: that it was not Russia that attacked Ukraine, but Ukraine that attacked; that Ukraine has been killing Russians all these years…
- Was any of that surprising to you?
- What surprises me is that you still say it is possible to reach some kind of agreement with him.
- But reality bears this out. In 2022, we got Black Sea shipping going, and it continued until July 2026!
- Reality also speaks for itself now: Trump says there is an energy truce, and Putin keeps striking!
- What are we supposed to do, keep waiting and listening to Putin’s speeches at Valdai? I couldn’t care less about his speeches! We must do everything we can to get Black Sea shipping going again. If only two countries remained on the planet, Ukraine and Russia, then it really would be either us or them. But this world also has Turkey, India, China, Arab and African countries. And they have leverage over Putin. Starting with sanctions circumvention through Turkey, the straits, the situation in Syria, and the situation in the South Caucasus…
- Another thing you said that bothered me. You say, "not to strike each other’s energy infrastructure or educational institutions". You seem to be equating the aggressor with the victim. Because I see Russia striking Ukrainian schools and institutes, but I do not see Ukraine deliberately targeting Russian schools.
- I do not see that either. We agree not to strike each other’s educational institutions.
- But we do not strike educational institutions! Do you know what this looks like to me? One person rapes another, and we say: "Agree not to rape each other!"
- Well…?
- Well, the second person did not rape the first! We did not strike educational institutions.
- I am saying that we need to put together a certain number of agreements that work in order to bring about de-escalation. This war is being fought without any rules. Establishing any rules at all would be positive for us.
- Those rules are set out in the Geneva Conventions, if I am not mistaken. Strikes on civilian objects are war crimes.
- Has that stopped Russia?
- No. They do not follow those rules. So why would they follow yours?
- Because we will reach an agreement and they will sign it. We will always be able to show: "Look, here is our agreement on this, and here is a school in flames."
- You sound naive, Oleksii! You say: "Putin, look, there is a school burning!" He says: "It wasn’t me. You blew it up yourselves!" That has happened a hundred and fifty thousand times.
- Iryna, by that logic, there is no point in talking to Putin about anything, because whatever we agree on with him, he will not honour it anyway. But that is a road to nowhere. Let’s try. If it does not work, well, we will return to where we are now.
- I can give examples of Russia failing to keep its promises: the Treaty of Friendship between Ukraine and Russia, the Budapest Memorandum, the Peace Treaty with the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, its commitment to withdraw Russian troops from Transnistria, the agreement on Georgia, and so on and so forth. Do you have an example of Russia honouring its commitments?
- And? Everything you said is true. What does that mean? There are agreements that Russia honours. But those agreements are with countries whose strength Russia respects. Russia does not violate any agreements with China, the US, or India. And I will tell you more: it does not violate agreements with Turkey either. So you do not have to be a nuclear power, but you do have to be a strong country.
HONCHARENKO’S PLAN: ABANDONING NATO ASPIRATIONS
- One of the compromises you propose is giving up on NATO and adopting neutral status. But we already had an agreement, the Budapest Memorandum. It did not work.
- So what does this point in my plan have to do with the Budapest Memorandum?
- Well, it was a security guarantee.
- Security guarantees must come from someone other than Russia. As we have already discussed, our security guarantee is our Armed Forces. Once hostilities end, we will need guarantees from our partners of long-term funding for the Armed Forces of Ukraine, so that we can sustain the strength that will deter Putin.
- What does your proposed neutral status entail instead of NATO? Just the Armed Forces of Ukraine and funding for them from our partners?
- And our right, for example, to form smaller defence alliances. No one is stopping us from creating a Baltic-Black Sea defence alliance with the Scandinavian and Baltic countries, which are interested in the Ukrainian Armed Forces, whilst we are interested in their funding and technology.
Russia says everywhere, over and over: "It is a matter of principle for us that Ukraine should not be a member of NATO." I actually wanted to see Ukraine in NATO. But there is one small problem — NATO does not want us. Given this reality, I believe this is a reasonable bargaining chip for negotiations. We say: "It is so important to you that we do not join NATO. We are prepared to agree to that if our partners give us written guarantees that they will fund our Armed Forces, and that will be our security guarantee."
- You have also spoken about concessions on language and the church. Don’t you think that in doing so we would be signalling that Russia can determine our domestic policy for us?
- I don’t think so.
- What would you call it, then?
- I want to stress one important thing. I am not saying any of this because I like it. Ideally, I would like to see Putin in the dock. I would like to see Russia cease to exist, break apart. They would pay us reparations for generations. And so on and so forth. But that is not the reality. And with every passing day, Ukraine’s negotiating position grows weaker. We are not getting stronger. Our last major success was in November 2022 — the liberation of Kherson and Right-Bank Ukraine. There have been no strategic successes since then. The Kursk operation was not a success. With all due respect to Operation "Vivaldi" or any of the others, these are tactical matters. Strategically, since 2022, we have lost territory, people, and our businesses. Under these circumstances, it would be beneficial for us; the key word is "beneficial", not "pleasant" — to get out of this war. And to do that, we will have to reach some sort of agreement with Russia. Because, unfortunately, we have not defeated them militarily. Thank God, and thanks to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, they have not been able to defeat us as they wanted either. So we negotiate.
As for the Russian language and whether Putin would then be influencing our domestic policy. Well, that depends on what we write into the agreement. For example, we could reaffirm Ukraine’s commitment not to suppress the Russian language. Are we planning to suppress it?
- But it isn’t being suppressed here anyway.
- But Putin says it is. Why can’t we do this as a compromise to get out of the war?
- And what do you propose doing about the Moscow-affiliated church?
- The same thing. Are we going to use force to stop people attending the Russian church? No. Let’s put in writing a commitment that we will not take their churches away and that they can attend them.
- Who is this "we" that must not take churches away?
- The Ukrainian state.
- Well, as far as I can see, the Ukrainian state is not taking them away anyway. The congregations decide. But I understand your point. So, in your view, what status should the Russian language have?
- No status. The same as Hungarian or Romanian.
- But Putin demands that Russian be given some kind of "official status". I do not know what he means by that.
- We will say: here is its official status; people can speak Russian in everyday life; there is no problem.
- And if Putin demands that Russian become a state language?
- Well, then we have no agreement.
- What concessions do you think Russia should make, then?
- Their main concession would be ending the war. And stopping without fulfilling the requirements of their so-called constitution. There must be no talk of capturing Zaporizhzhia or Kherson. The most difficult and problematic issue, I think, will be Donbas. And I am not proposing to surrender Donbas. That is clearly unacceptable to us.
- Suppose your plan works: we reach some small agreements and bring hostilities to a halt. But three years pass, and Russia attacks again. What then?
- Then it is war again. We should have spent those three years strengthening ourselves and not plundering the country. But anything could happen in those three years! Maybe Putin will drop dead, maybe a meteorite will hit Russia, maybe they will get drawn into a war somewhere else, maybe there will be a plague there. But we will have peace for those three years. It is better for Ukraine to have that three-year pause. But, forgive the word, it is presumptuous to claim that anyone can know for certain that Russia will definitely attack in three years. No one knows that.
AN AGENT? WHO DOES HONCHARENKO WORK FOR
- Since you announced your plan, two types of accusations have been levelled against you. The first: Honcharenko is a Kremlin sleeper agent, a spy who gets money from the Kremlin. The second: Honcharenko is a professional politician who plays on public expectations, courting a particular group of voters.
- You forgot the third type! Honcharenko is also an American spy — MAGA, Trump.
- Have you discussed your plan with any representatives of Russia or people in any way connected with Russia?
- God forbid.
- And with the Americans?
- I speak to people from the US who hold positions of responsibility. And from my conversations with them, I understand that we need to move along roughly these lines. I discussed these ideas with them. They showed understanding and support. But that does not mean anyone there signed off on the actual text of my statement.
- Who are these people?
- They are influential people in the Republican Party.
- Name them.
- I won’t.
- Are you an American agent?
- No. I am a Ukrainian agent. If a Ukrainian politician has no high-level contacts in the US, that politician is not worth a penny. Because this is something the state needs, not me personally.
- Oleksii, have you spoken to these people in the Republican Party about Starlink, about the fact that they have stopped providing intelligence and ballistic missiles are hitting people without warning?
- These people are just as upset about what is happening. But these people are not President Trump. They do not make the final decision. But they also tell me that if our president keeps attacking Trump, or even just criticising him, Trump will hate him more and more. And his attitude towards Zelenskyy will spill over into his attitude towards Ukraine.
- If there is suddenly a truce now and elections are held, will you launch your own political project?
- If elections are held, I will, of course, take part.
- Will it be the Honcharenko Party? The Peace Party?
- I have no name for it at the moment.
- Will Danylo Hetmantsev and Ihor Terekhov, who have made similar statements about peace, be part of your team?
- I have no ties to Hetmantsev or Terekhov. I at least have Terekhov’s phone number; I spoke to him once this year, but I do not communicate with Hetmantsev at all. I had a fight with him at the rostrum of the Verkhovna Rada; that was probably my only close contact with him.
PARTING WAYS WITH POROSHENKO
- Let’s talk about your split with the European Solidarity faction. But first, I want to show you a clip of you singing with Petro Poroshenko.
- Did you personally discuss your split with Petro Poroshenko?
- Yes, that same day, before the faction voted to expel me. I will not go into the details; it was a personal conversation, after all.
- How did the conversation go?
- He invited me to a meeting. I came to Kyiv. The two of us met alone. It was a difficult conversation. Frankly, I had not expected the issue to be put to me in quite that way. I respect him. He expressed respect for me. We have known each other for probably 20 years, and I spent 12 of those on his team. We have come a very long way together. But we realised that there are things that are fundamental to me and things that are fundamental to him, and that is why we parted ways.
- Which specific things you said were unacceptable to Petro Oleksiiovych?
- Ask Petro Oleksiiovych that. You are trying to get me to reveal details of our conversation that I do not want to disclose. It is all set out in the faction’s statement. In effect, he suggested that I retract at least some of what I had said. I value those 12 years and respect almost all the colleagues I served with in the faction. But that is where it ended.
- Do you regret it?
- I did not expect it.
- Is there anyone in the faction who has told you: "Lyosha, we are with you, you are right, but we will not say so publicly"?
- Lots of them.
- A third of the faction?
- A third, definitely.
- Well, now Petro Oleksiiovych will go looking for them. One last question. What about your seat in PACE?
- The Ukrainian delegation to PACE is formed once a year, in mid-January. It cannot be changed after that. Until mid-January, I will be in PACE as a representative of European Solidarity. And in mid-January, either a faction or a group will nominate me, or no one will, and I will cease to be a PACE delegate.
Iryna Romaliiska, Censor.NET
