Mykhailo Fedorov, the popular former defense minister who was dismissed from his position last month, has released a video calling for wartime elections. (Routine elections were suspended for the war, allowing Zelensky to serve since 2019.) Fedorov’s very popularity was likely the reason for his sacking by Zelensky. And the very fact that the New York Times has made prominent note of this challenge, after extensive reporting of corruption in Zelensky’s circles has been allowed to escape containment, indicates that the situation is growing serious. I’m not suggesting there is a coordinated “op” against Zelensky, but the conventional wisdom of Ukraine’s international supporters does seem to be turning against him at once. Zelensky has been boxed in to difficult and costly decisions. To maintain support among Ukrainian ultranationalists, he has revived state honors named after militant nationalists in the 1930s, setting off a predictable diplomatic slapfight with Poland and sinking support for the war in a country that was, until recently, one of Ukraine’s most enthusiastic supporters.
Fedorov made the powerful argument in his video attacking Zelensky that if elections are conditional on the war ending, effectively Russia has a veto over Ukrainian democracy. In the current political context, there is a double effect to this argument. To those who want to redouble efforts toward a Ukrainian victory, it suggests that the current leadership is politically insulated by the continuation of conflict. To those who are weary and want to see a negotiated exit, it suggests that perhaps the current government has improper pecuniary motives in the continuation of the war effort. Ironically, Ukraine’s very dependence on its Western sponsors likely means elections won’t happen without some foreign support for them. That puts all the sudden reporting on corruption in Zelensky’s circles in a different light.