Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

Zelenskyy Called November a Benchmark for Ending Hot Phase — But Condition Remains Open

The President admitted the possibility of ending active combat operations this year — if Ukraine receives security guarantees. For an economy growing at only 2% with 57% of the budget allocated to defense, the difference between "possibly" and "certainly" means years of reconstruction.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

May 25, 2026 · 3 min read

Zelenskyy Called November a Benchmark for Ending Hot Phase — But Condition Remains Open
Володимир Зеленський (Фото: Офіс президента)

On May 25, President Volodymyr Zelensky met with the Servant of the People faction — and for the first time publicly tied the possible end of active combat to a specific timeframe. Details became known not from an official briefing, but from a post by MP Olha Vasylevska-Smahluk, who decided to share the information herself — "because it would leak to Telegram channels anyway."

What Zelensky said

According to Vasylevska-Smahluk, the lion's share of the meeting focused on deescalation prospects. The president outlined three things: a timeframe, a condition, and a threat.

"By November, there is a possibility, subject to the provision of security guarantees, to end the active phase of the war. Currently, we have an advantage on the battlefield that can be used. The main goal is to prevent Russia from deceiving us and starting new military operations after a brief pause."

Olha Vasylevska-Smahluk, MP from Servant of the People

Faction head Davyd Arakhamiya wrote after the meeting that "the next 6 months should become a time of maximum concentration and stabilization of the country's work". Among the priorities are the stability of state institutions, support for the military, timely payments to people, energy, and steps toward EU membership. Diplomacy was discussed separately: Zelensky expects Europe to decide who will become a mediator for the peace track, and expects a US delegation in the near future.

What lies behind "possibility"

The word "considered" is no accident. Zelensky did not announce negotiations and did not name a specific format for guarantees. The phrase captures a window of opportunity, not a decision. This is important to distinguish: Kyiv has repeatedly emphasized that a "freeze" without real guarantees is a worse scenario than continuing military operations, as it gives Moscow time to rearm.

This is why the discussion centers not on the date, but on the mechanism. Which countries will sign on to guarantees, what format, what obligations regarding response in case of a new attack — this has not yet been publicly determined.

The price of the question for the economy

For an average Ukrainian, the difference between "active phase by November" and "war for another year" is not abstract. It is the hryvnia exchange rate, the availability of credit, the return of displaced persons, and the pace of reconstruction of destroyed housing.

The EBRD in its latest report noted: Ukraine's real GDP in 2025 grew by only 2% — accounting for acceleration to 3% at year-end. The bank cut its 2026 forecast in half — from 5% to 2.5%, explaining: previous optimism was based on the assumption of ceasefire and the start of reconstruction. This did not happen.

Oxford Economics calculated the difference between scenarios more precisely: a stable ceasefire on Ukraine's terms allows reconstruction in 12.3 years; an unstable ceasefire on Russia's terms stretches this process to 40.8 years. The baseline scenario without any ceasefire is 27 years.

The Centre for Economic Strategy provides a minimum benchmark: if GDP grows at least 7% annually after the war ends through 2030, Ukraine will be able to reach a level of $300 billion — sufficient to finance defense, social benefits for veterans, and basic infrastructure simultaneously. Below this mark, compromises between security and social spending become inevitable.

What is missing from the public picture

The meeting was closed. Everything the public knows is what the deputies themselves decided to share. Arakhamiya confirmed: they discussed challenges for the economy and the main tasks of the state. No details. This means that between "November as a reference point" and actual negotiations on guarantees lies an entire structure that does not exist in the public domain.

The key question is not whether the active phase will end by November — but rather what specific security guarantees will be considered sufficient for Kyiv to agree to stop the fighting. If by autumn this mechanism does not appear in a specific legal form, the timeframe will become another reference point that has passed without consequences.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026