Ukrainian President Zelensky proposed putting a prospective peace deal with Russia up to a referendum due to the potential compromises that it might entail, which prompted Russian presidential spokesman Peskov to reply that “putting [the terms] before the public at this moment can only undermine the negotiations that are already going a lot slower and are less substantial than we want them to be.” Nevertheless, doing so would self-interestedly serve as a demagogic distraction from the Ukrainian leader’s latest shift towards dictatorship that rapidly unfolded after he banned multiple opposition parties (though conspicuously not Neo-Nazi movements like the Azov one that serves alongside his country’s armed forces) and consolidated all national TV channels into one platform.
Zelensky also just disrespected his fellow Jewish co-religionists in Israel by ridiculously comparing President Putin to Hitler and his country’s ongoing special military operation to the Holocaust. That move forced the Israeli Communications Minister to promptly issue a public clarification lest unaware observers be misled down the dark path of Holocaust revisionism by his groundless comparison, while members of the Religious Zionist Party had much harsher condemnation of what he just scandalously said. Israeli Prime Minister Bennett chimed in by powerfully declaring that “it is forbidden to compare anything to the Holocaust” whereas the chair of the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial Center called on Zelensky to apologize, which he hasn’t yet done at the time of this article’s publication.
The Ukrainian leader’s drastic shift towards dictatorship and his irresponsible flirting with Holocaust revisionism have drawn a lot of negative attention, which is why it’s in his interests to distract the world by pretending to be a “democrat” through his latest peace deal referendum proposal. While this idea might sound pragmatic to casual observers, those who study the intricacies of peace processes understand that it’s impractical. A country like Ukraine that’s in the throes of US-provoked conflict and whose people are incessantly fed the most vicious anti-Russian propaganda imaginable cannot count on its population to put their national interests about emotive matters like even just the simple act of negotiating a peace deal with Russia in order to end Moscow’s kinetic operations in the country.
That’s why Peskov assessed that Zelensky’s proposal “can only undermine the negotiations” since it creates very clear red lines that the Ukrainian side can’t cross since they know that their people won’t accept such compromises even if they’re truly pragmatic and objectively in their country’s interests considering the newfound conditions in which it’s found itself due to this US-provoked conflict. Just like Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan bravely agreed to a Russian-mediated ceasefire with Azerbaijan for ending 2020’s Karabakh Conflict without putting his side’s pragmatic compromises up to a referendum, so too should Zelensky do the same and similarly rely on snap elections like his Caucasian counterpart later did to determine the public’s support for his move.
The passage of time enabled Armenians to calmly assess the consequences of their leader’s pragmatic compromises, which was why they voted to keep him in power. Ukrainians should be allowed to do the same and not be forced for demagogic and diplomatically counterproductive reasons to immediately vote on any proposed compromises prior to them entering into effect while still in their very easily manipulated wartime mentality that can also be influenced by ill-intended third parties like the US. In fact, Zelensky probably has better odds of remaining in power than Pashinyan did since the former has become a global celebrity and the face of his nation since the conflict began due to the unprecedented support that he’s received from the US-led West’s Mainstream Media.
With the Armenian precedent in mind, Zelensky should consider backtracking on his demagogic proposal if he truly has his country’s best interests in mind like Pashinyan did in waiting some time to hold snap elections in order to assess the public’s support or lack thereof for the pragmatic compromises that he agreed to months prior. It’s only through the passage of time that the people most directly affected by the international decisions that they entrusted their leaders to make by voting them into office in the first place can most objectively assess their consequences. Having them vote on such prior to their implementation and in the midst of an armed conflict is a surefire way to have them denied due to how easy it is to manipulate the minds of wartime populations.
Source: One World