Vladimir Fesenko: Goncharenko is certainly not Moscow's “conserve,” but right now he is playing into the Kremlin's hands

A scandalous statement and the so-called peace plan of people's deputy Oleksiy Goncharenko have sparked sharp reactions in the domestic political scene and even a comment from President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. What is this actually: a populist move by a single politician or a reflection of real moods among other Ukrainian politicians and society? How widespread are such views and who stands behind them? Journalist Korotko asks political scientist Volodymyr Fesenko (the interview was conducted just a few hours before the EU announcement about the expulsion of Oleksiy Goncharenko from the party).

Ukraine is forming a split between the “peace party” and the “victory party.”

- So what is it, populism of a single deputy or do such moods really exist in the political elite and society?

- Populism appears where there are moods, that is why it is populism. Yes, a certain part of Ukrainian society has a demand for “peace above all.” Until recently, war-time populism dominated — war to the victorious end, no deals with Russia and so on. They dominated and still do.

And now, for various reasons (prolonged war, escalation on the part of Russia, massive strikes on Kyiv), certainly influenced the moods of part of society. Goncharenko caught that. Earlier, somewhere in 2024, there was only fatigue from the war. In 2025 there were hopes for Trump, for peace talks that did not work, did not come true. And so now a depression has emerged in part of our society. According to sociologists, we have from 15 to 30 percent who are willing to go for “peace at any price” and concessions to Russia.

Therefore Goncharenko, an experienced and very ambitious politician, is seeking his independent role here. For about two years now, and especially recently, he has been making various statements of flirtation precisely with that part of society that wants to end the war. He actively opposes the mobilization center (TCC), he is the only member of the Verkhovna Rada who has for about a year voted against extending the wartime state. I think Oleksiy sensed the demand for peace in part of society and decided to lead this wave, to become the leader of the “peace party.”

- Who besides him in our political elite now holds such views?

- It is Kharkiv mayor Ihor Terekhov. Here I should recall a telling incident that happened practically at the same time as Goncharenko’s statement. 1 October published an article by Valeriy Zaluzhny, in which he condemned and criticized the businesslike approach to ending the war advocated by U.S. President Donald Trump. And there was skepticism about whether one can now, in this geopolitical reality, negotiate with Russia, which clearly does not want to negotiate.

And Terekhov responded to that article with criticism of Zaluzhny. He essentially started criticizing Zaluzhny for wanting a continuation of the war. So now the two most prominent figures from the conditional “peace party” are Terelykh and Goncharenko. I think there are others who simply wait and do not express their views.

- Goncharenko positions himself as a representative of the “peace party,” and that automatically means there is a “war party”? This already closely resembles Moscow’s rhetoric about the “Kyiv junta” that does not want peace.

- “War party” is in the Kremlin. And in Ukraine there are, of course, different camps. We have a conditionally “peace party” and a “victory party,” which considers negotiations with Moscow impossible. Each has roughly 20-30 percent support. So, roughly: about a quarter of the population supports the conditional “peace party,” another quarter – the “victory party.” And others 50% are people who want the war to end but do not support peace at any price.

Goncharenko instinctively senses the mood shift and the political conjuncture.

- Could Goncharenko be a deeply well-planned “conserve” of Moscow, a political drone waiting for a moment to “shoot”? Do not forget his political background — he was a 9 years member of the Party of Regions, and his father Oleksiy Kostusev was one of the “pillars” of this pro-Russian force.

- I am skeptical about that. I know this history well and can tell you that Oleksiy had a conflict with his father. Kostusev somewhat helped him politically at a certain period, and then a classic melodramatic story of conflict between parents and children emerged. When the son wants to surpass the father and chooses another political path, a political career, to compete with a father who abandoned the family, abandoned his child.

I have known Oleksiy Goncharenko for a long time, since 2010. I should note that he was a member of his father’s pro-Russian Ukrainian party — “Union,” which later joined the Party of Regions. And Goncharenko’s joining the Party of Regions was a purely opportunistic decision.

But when in 2014 the occupation of Crimea began, he had a political pivot toward a patriotic stance. From leaving the Regions, Goncharenko began even earlier, from the beginning of the Maidan. And after a trip to Crimea and meeting with Poroshenko there, Goncharenko became his ally.

Therefore he is not a “conserve” of Moscow, he is a “political animal” in Aristotle’s sense, who simply on instinct senses mood changes and political conjuncture. I think this is Goncharenko’s characteristic. And he himself does not hide his ambitions.

And the question is only a matter of time before he starts his own political career. Now, I think this could be the beginning. Pay attention to the fact that he has started creating “Goncharenko Centers.” Not “Poroshenko centers” or “European Solidarity,” but “Goncharenko Centers.” And that is a brand. And just now promoting a peace plan is also branding his own name in the context of peace, peaceful negotiations, etc. This is a bid for an independent political role. So no, he is not a “conserve,” he is playing for himself, although, of course, many accuse him of pro-Russian orientation. I think this is a simplification.

- But you will not deny that his statement sounded very timely… for Moscow. Now the issue is a trilateral meeting of Ukraine, the United States, and Russia; a hard winter is ahead, Putin has accumulated a lot of ballistic missiles, and it is necessary to strengthen the psychological and moral pressure on Kyiv. And Goncharenko surfaced with his statement right here.

- The coincidence is a fact. At first I even thought it was a nervous breakdown. But no, Goncharenko has long been refining the role of a peacemaker, that he is against war. So he decided that the time is right now. He sees the changing mood of people and decided to ride that wave; there are no other contenders for this role besides him and Tereshova.

And this is precisely used as an argument in suspicions about Goncharenko. So I can fully agree that such an effect is what Moscow expects. That Ukraine should have politicians who advocate peace on Russia’s terms. In this sense, unfortunately, Goncharenko’s actions partly serve Russia’s interests.

Goncharenko’s plan is a compilation from Trump’s peace plan.

- Again, in Goncharenko’s “peace plan” there is a provision for partial lifting of sanctions on Russia…

- And what? I should remind that gradual lifting of sanctions on Russia is one of the points in Trump’s peace plan. In general, in the so-called “peace plan” of Goncharenko there is nothing new; it is a compilation. It speaks of an energy and maritime truce. Yes, the idea of an energy truce has been discussed since the beginning of the year. Everyone knows that the idea of an energy truce is being discussed at the American initiative. And Oleksiy has prioritized this idea.

Then comes a maritime truce — that is also being discussed now, and Turkey has been advancing this idea for several months. As for other points of Goncharenko’s plan, you will find that all these ideas have been used before. They are not Goncharenko’s ideas; they are Trump administration ideas, and Oleksiy wants to please the American president. Right now several politicians are playing to please Trump so the Americans will place their bets on them.

- President Zelenskiy subtly hinted that Goncharenko is playing into Moscow’s hands…

- It’s good that he reacted; it was logical. He distance d himself and condemned it. This corresponds to our official negotiating position. Zelenskiy understands very well that now stating concessions to Russia would be a failure in negotiations, because it would weaken our bargaining position rather than strengthen it. I completely agree with him here.

Is there a chance for a “man of peace” to enter the top tier of politics?

- How, or whether at all, will the authorities under Zelenskiy adjust their actions given that Goncharenko verbalized the views of the “peace party?”

- Directly — no. But they will have to take it into account. Zelenskiy will watch how society responds to a “peace above all.” Besides, Zelenskiy has his own “branch” of the “peace party,” namely the Kharkiv mayor Tereshov. This is Zelenskiy’s “branch” only with the aim of appealing to Russian-speaking voters and to a peacekeeping stance.

But what is a certain problem for Zelenskiy? On the one hand, he truly is accustomed to reacting to public moods. But unlike Goncharenko, he conducts official negotiations. Accordingly, he cannot publicly speak of peace based on concessions. If you publicly, in advance, put forward a thesis about concessions, then it’s over; you will be demanded even greater concessions. Zelenskiy understands this.

He is also an experienced politician, including in negotiations. He has emotions, many mistakes, but here I think he is acting correctly. He does not make such statements, does not voice a thesis of concessions to Russia, but if he senses that society may support certain concessions, then in negotiations Zelenskiy can also take this into account.

- You said that Goncharenko could become the leader of the conditional “peace party.” Will he be able to compete with such rating figures as Zelenskiy himself, Zaluzhny, Bodanov, Fedorov, Biletsky in future elections, to become their equal rival?

- I want to remind you that when the presidential campaign began in 2019, many seriously did not take Zelenskiy seriously. He was very popular; the whole country knew him, but as a presidential candidate he was not taken seriously until March 2019.

I’ll say where Goncharenko has drawbacks and problems for him to start his game. First — he is not a new person in Ukrainian politics…

- He has a dubious background…

- That’s right. And second, no less important — for many voters he is a Poroshenko person. And these are two main constraints on the growth of his personal rating. He currently has 2% rating, and that is not even second, but third tier of the presidential race, barely more than Arestovych. But I do not rule out that his current positioning as a “man of peace” may influence his ratings to grow.