The administration of US President Donald Trump has made it clear that it sees Volodymyr Zelenskiy as an obstacle to aiding Ukraine.
The question for Zelenskiy is whether Ukrainians agree.
The US political assaults on Zelenskiy have escalated since Friday’s White House bust up, when Trump and US Vice President JD Vance branded Zelenskiy disrespectful and suggested that his intransigence, rather than Moscow’s aggression, was the impediment to a US-brokered ceasefire with Russia.
Zelenskiy, who is seeking to rally support from his European backers at a summit of leaders in London yesterday, has no plans to leave office, his aides said.
His political future is a matter for Ukrainians and no one else, they said.
“The main question now is what to do next,” former Ukrainian president and main opposition leader Petro Poroshenko said, stressing that relations between Ukraine and the US are about more than just Zelenskiy and Trump.
“We hope that President Zelenskiy has a plan B,” Poroshenko said on Saturday in a video address from Ukraine’s south, where he was delivering aid to troops.
In Ukraine, the pressure is rising among a populace that has endured three years of war since Russia’s full-scale invasion. Elections have been put on hold indefinitely, and Zelenskiy’s ratings have dropped from the stellar levels of the early months of 2022. Although he remains popular, a commonly heard sentiment is that people are tired and want some fresh perspective.
Against that backdrop, the sudden doubts cast over continued US support is one body blow among many.
The “Make America Great Again” world has taken up the gauntlet since Friday, with political commentator Tucker Carlson — who interviewed Russian President Vladimir Putin — writing a string of conspiracy theories and misinformation on X, including that Ukraine’s government under Zelenskiy had committed “a remarkable number of serious crimes.”
The paradox for Trump and Vance is the more they squeeze Zelenskiy, the more Ukrainians rally to their president’s side. It is a dynamic that was on show on the streets of Kyiv immediately after the Oval Office debacle.
Trump “wanted to humiliate us all,” said Vladyslav Musiienko, 52, a photographer. “Despite the fact that I didn’t vote for Zelenskiy, my personal support for the president grew after this spectacle.”
Armed Forces of Ukraine Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrskyi posted his support for the president on X, writing that the military was “with the Supreme Commander-in-Chief.”
Poroshenko, too, acknowledged the need to pull together.
“People are waiting for me to criticize Zelenskiy, but no, I won’t do that, as it’s not what the country needs right now,” he said. “The only thing that Ukraine needs now is unity.”
How much longer people would remain united under such strains is another matter.
While there is stabilization at the front, the Russians have superiority of manpower and weapons. Russians are at the same time increasing pressure on the information sphere, creating splits within military circles, between the military and society, and between Ukraine and its partners, a person familiar with the situation said, who asked not to be named discussing strategic security matters.
Even an eventual peace deal would almost certainly be hard for many Ukrainians to swallow, and potentially damaging politically for whoever is in charge.
Zelenskiy has acknowledged the pressure from the US, reiterating to Fox News on Friday that he would resign if Ukraine secured NATO membership. He has already said it is clear he “won’t be in power for decades” and that he would be ready to step down if it were to guarantee a durable peace for his country.
For now, the share of respondents who said they trust Zelenskiy rose to 65 percent from 57 percent in January, a Feb. 20 to Feb. 21 survey by the Rating Group agency showed. That was surpassed only by trust for former Armed Forces of Ukraine commander-in-chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi, now Ukraine’s ambassador to the UK, which held steady at 76 percent.
Zaluzhnyi, known as the “Iron General,” has not explicitly ruled out running in an election against Zelenskiy. Asked about his political ambitions at an event in Kyiv on Feb. 19, he suggested the time was not ripe. On Saturday, he struck a tone of unity.
“This war is testing us for resilience and bravery. Additionally, it shows who our true friends are,” Zaluzhnyi said on Telegram.
“It will be difficult, but together we will overcome everything,” he added, referencing the London talks on more support for Ukraine.
Zelenskiy’s term expired in May of last year, but neither his administration nor Ukrainians at large believe elections can be held now. Indeed, holding elections during martial law is not just legally prohibited, the practicalities of doing so rule it out. What is more, parliament passed a resolution last week saying that Zelenskiy should remain in power as long as Russia’s war continues and that new elections may only be held once peace has been achieved.
Putin, whose stated military goals in 2022 included “regime change” in Kyiv, weighed in on Ukraine and elections anyway. He claimed without proof last week that Zelenskiy’s ratings were half of those of Zaluzhnyi’s, and said that Zelenskiy had “zero” chance of re-election.
Putin also sided with Trump, saying that the US president’s pressure for Ukrainian elections was in the interest of the country’s sovereignty.
Another Ukrainian official hinted at questions over Zelenskiy’s leadership style, saying that he should realize he needs strong professional advisers to whom he should listen.
The president should stop being aggressive to those around him so they are afraid to say what they think, the person said.
However, public sentiment would suggest that even a change of president would not necessarily yield a leader more amenable to Trump and his plans for a rapid normalization of relations with Russia. About 83 percent of Ukrainians surveyed by Rating Group said they would agree to a ceasefire only under the condition that security guarantees are provided — the same sticking point that contributed to the scenes at the White House. Just 2 percent would agree to a ceasefire without conditions.
That reality made the escalation inevitable, independently of Zelenskiy’s personal history with Trump, said Oleksandr Sushko, the head of the International Renaissance Foundation, a Kyiv-based charity that is part of business magnate George Soros’ Open Society Foundations network.
“It would have happened anyway — if not now, then in a month or two,” Sushko wrote on Facebook. Trump’s priority for a speedy peace accord can only come on Putin’s terms, and “not a single Ukrainian leader would sign such a deal — even under the pressure of losing US support.”
Meanwhile, the drumbeat from Washington is relentlessly hostile.
The US Department of State last week terminated a US Agency for International Development (USAID) initiative that had helped Ukraine repair vital energy infrastructure damaged by Russian attacks, NBC News reported. The move had been expected after USAID was ordered to suspend projects in Ukraine amid a broad US foreign aid freeze, but it is a reminder of the consequences of Washington’s souring on Kyiv.
In the Trump administration’s new world order, Ukraine is reduced to a mere “submissive listener” and an “instrument” of US will, Kyiv pensioner Anatoliy Makarenko said.
“We do not accept this role,” Makarenko said, adding that Zelenskiy was morally right to react so strongly. “But I doubt that this will benefit us.”
With assistance from Andrea Palasciano
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
A media report has suggested that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was considering initiating a vote of no confidence in Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) in a bid to “bring down the Cabinet.” The KMT has denied that this topic was ever discussed. Why might such a move have even be considered? It would have been absurd if it had seen the light of day — potentially leading to a mass loss of legislative seats for the KMT even without the recall petitions already under way. Today the second phase of the recall movement is to begin — which has
RSS