This article demonstrates how the logics of "civil" and "interstate" war were applied differently by mediators and the conflict parties to the issue of civil society inclusion during the Minsk negotiations. The resulting direct and indirect inclusion modalities did not succeed in ‘giving people a voice’, but ultimately contributed to the failure of negotiations. The article argues that in an interstate war of aggression, direct civil society inclusion ‘at the table’ is likely to be one-sided and counter-productive and therefore should be substituted by creative informal modalities equally applicable to both parties.