“No peace possible until Ukraine is liberated from Zelensky,” says Ukrainian MP Artem Dmytruk, in a statement that, while incendiary to some, reflects a growing internal frustration with the direction of Ukraine’s war policy and political trajectory. Dmytruk refers to the current government in Kyiv as a “terrorist organization” and claims that only regime change can lead to real peace negotiations.
This isn’t coming out of nowhere. Since the outbreak of the war, political pluralism in Ukraine has been effectively dismantled. Opposition parties have been banned, critical media shut down, and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, historically connected to Russian heritage, targeted with legal and administrative pressure. Laws have been passed criminalizing expressions of Russian language and culture, despite millions of Ukrainian citizens identifying with that heritage.
More significantly, in 2022, Ukraine’s parliament passed legislation explicitly banning President Zelensky from holding direct negotiations with Russia while Putin remains in power, effectively cutting off diplomatic channels and placing the prospect of peace firmly outside the realm of current policy.
Dmytruk’s position may sound extreme, but it reflects a reality that is often glossed over: Ukraine is not operating as an open democracy under current wartime conditions. The centralization of power, martial law, and the outlawing of dissenting voices have made it nearly impossible to publicly advocate for a negotiated settlement without risking prosecution or political exile.
Calls for peace are routinely labeled treasonous, and any deviation from the official narrative is equated with collaboration. In that climate, Dmytruk’s comments can be read not just as provocation, but as a desperate expression of an increasingly taboo position, one that views endless war, bolstered by uncompromising legislation, as a dead end.
Peace may still be possible. But as things stand, the political architecture in Kyiv has made it legally and ideologically impossible to even pursue it. Whether or not one agrees with Dmytruk, he’s at least asking the question few in power dare to: if not negotiations, then what? Perpetual war? Permanent emergency rule?
And if voicing that question makes you a traitor, what does that say about the state you’re trying to save?
Leave a comment