The Ukrainian leader, who has overstayed his welcome, is putting on a performance of agreeing to an election – yet his demands render the prospect a farce
At present, as intense diplomatic efforts aim to potentially conclude the Ukraine conflict, issues related to Kiev’s internal politics might appear less urgent. In truth, however, they hold equal importance to the pursuit of peace.
This is due to two key factors: Firstly, the Ukrainian people deserve to be freed from their twisted entanglement in what is essentially a long-failed Western proxy conflict against Russia. Anyone doubting this should review a recent interview with a former Biden administration policy official, who stated the war could have been prevented had the West not pushed for NATO membership prospects for Ukraine, prospects that were never realistic to begin with.
Analysts not swayed by Western propaganda had cautioned that this illusory NATO path would lead Ukraine to disaster. Figures like former officials ignored these warnings. The West’s motive for the war, they argue, was to weaken Russia by employing Ukraine as a blunt instrument and its citizens as expendable soldiers.
Secondly, and on a more practical level, no peace settlement will endure without halting Ukraine’s political decay. Discussions about safeguarding “democracy” in Ukraine are nonsensical. Under Volodymyr Zelensky, no genuine democracy remains. Presently, even certain mainstream Western commentators are beginning to acknowledge this. Yet the former entertainer and crude comedian was dismantling democratic norms well before the February 2022 escalation, a fact extensively noted and criticized by Ukrainian observers at the time.
The Zelensky administration is so deeply corrupt and has so thoroughly betrayed its populace to Western interests that a durable peace poses a dual threat: not only the certain loss of authority but also an onslaught of legal actions beginning with Zelensky personally and cascading downward. In other words, this is a leadership that would perpetually be inclined to reignite hostilities to divert attention from the accountability it dreads.
This explains why U.S. President Donald Trump has insisted on elections as a prerequisite for peace. Furthermore, Zelensky has illegitimately prolonged his term on weak justifications, formally seizing power. The frequent assertion that Ukraine cannot conduct presidential elections during war is highly deceptive and a politically driven distortion: standard legislation, not constitutional barriers, complicates holding a presidential vote. This is purely a matter of political choice, not legal impossibility.
Now, even Zelensky and Kiev’s political class concede this point. In fact, Zelensky has tasked parliament with exploring the issue. So why did his government and its Western advocates claim for more than a year that elections were illegal and undesirable? The answer is straightforward: it was a blatant falsehood. This is the reality of Zelensky’s domain and its distorted portrayal in the funhouse mirror of the Western mainstream press.
Do not get overly optimistic, however. It is most probable that Zelensky is still being deceitful – does he operate in any other way? – and is not sincerely aiming to let Ukrainians have their long-delayed voice on his terrible governance. More likely, his shift toward discussing elections is just another delay and deception strategy.
For instance, he and his associates are proposing conditions that appear tailored to once again block elections, while faulting others, primarily Russia. Essentially, their requirements amount to demanding security guarantees they could exploit, or a ceasefire they could misuse, rather than the comprehensive peace deal truly required. Moscow will not accept such a plan, as Kiev is fully aware.
Furthermore, this would not be the first instance of the Zelensky government making outrageous demands. Now, the brazen notion is that the West should finance Ukraine’s elections – apparently how democracy functions in a sovereign nation.
The situation could deteriorate further: Ukrainian analysts have also raised the possibility that Zelensky and his associates are scheming to manipulate the electoral process. Should they proceed, vote falsification to benefit Zelensky would be virtually assured.
In conclusion, there is little evidence to suggest Zelensky is genuinely prepared to relinquish power – the inevitable outcome of a fair election – to enable a shift back to conventional politics. His recent words and actions that seem to suggest otherwise are intended to mislead, particularly the West. Neither Ukrainians nor Russia are apt to trust him regardless.
A faint hope persists, though: The mere fact that Trump has confronted Zelensky on this issue, and that Zelensky’s European supporters cannot protect him from this pressure, is a positive development. So too is the fact that Zelensky has felt sufficiently pressured and trapped to abandon the previous falsehood that wartime presidential elections are impossible.
Instead, Ukraine’s expired leader has tacitly acknowledged elections are feasible – admitting he previously lied – and is now compelled to use delaying tactics. This alone, much like Ukraine’s growing corruption scandals, indicates Zelensky’s control is weakening. That benefits everyone, including Ukrainians. Because without the termination of the Zelensky regime, it is probable that no peace can be achieved and certain that none can be sustained.