Talks later, losses now: an MP is proposing to “hold out until spring” and raise the stakes while Ukraine pays with soldiers’ lives

Negotiating peace right now is not advantageous for Ukraine.

This opinion was expressed by Verkhovna Rada deputy Roman Kostenko in an interview with the German state media company Deutsche Welle.

“If we hold out until spring, the situation will change,” the deputy claims.

When Roman Kostenko says that negotiating peace right now is “unprofitable,” he may think it sounds rational. But to society it sounds different: like cold bookkeeping against the backdrop of daily deaths.

The essence of his message is simple: hold on until spring, “stop” things on the battlefield, bring the enemy’s losses to “50,000 a month,” shoot down “80–90% of drones” — and only then talk. In other words, peace is not the goal, but a prize for completing an almost fantastical checklist. Didn’t complete it — well then, it remains “unprofitable.”

And that’s where the most unpleasant part begins. Because this logic turns the war into an endless project: until the metrics are perfect, peace is postponed. And people? In this scheme, people are not subjects — they are expendable material for “improving the negotiating position.”

Then it gets “even better.” The deputy paints a picture of Ukraine dictating terms to the Kremlin: “give us the nuclear power plant, give us the Kinburn Spit, give us Nova Kakhovka…” It sounds threatening, almost like the script of a victorious press conference. But in real politics, loud lists of demands without a plan for how to achieve them are not strategy. They are self-soothing for the cameras.

The most telling thing is that there is no “Plan B.” It simply isn’t mentioned. And that means society is being asked to sign up for a simple formula: “just a little more терпения — and then, maybe, everything will change.” A convenient mantra when you don’t have to answer for the consequences right now.

And yes, it is precisely statements like these that pour fuel on the most toxic suspicions: that any authorities quickly develop political and financial incentives to drag out a war — ratings, control, budgets, aid flows, contracts. Even if that’s not the case, the rhetoric of “peace is unprofitable” does everything to make people believe it. Because it looks as if on Bankova they are discussing not “how to save lives,” but “when it’s more profitable to strike a deal.”

And if the authorities want to be trusted, they must stop speaking the language of profit. War is not a business plan. Peace is not a discount promotion where “it’ll be cheaper in spring.” As long as it sounds otherwise, society will keep asking the most uncomfortable question: for whom exactly is it “unprofitable” to end the war — and why?