Former Ukrainian minister of defense Mykhailo Fedorov is perhaps the standout political figure to have been forged in Ukraine by Russia’s invasion. He is smart, young, so far untouched by any corruption scandal and the force behind two transformations that have proved critical to his nation’s survival: drone warfare and digital government. Even so, his demand this week for wartime presidential elections was reckless and wrong.
Fedorov, whose July 15 sacking as defense minister prompted street protests, dropped a video address on Tuesday night that delivered as powerful an expression of what Ukrainians are fighting for as you could hope to see. It is worth watching what amounts to Fedorov’s nine-minute presidential campaign launch, because he distils what has driven so many Ukrainians to risk all in resisting not just Russian occupation, but also their own kleptocratic leaders when these have threatened the country’s democratic future.
Taken alone, almost every argument Fedorov makes is self-evidently true. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was elected president in 2019, so his five-year term expired two years ago, and democracy would be served by submitting him to the judgement of voters sooner rather than later. And although the constitution forbids holding a vote under martial law, Fedorov is right that the conflict with Russia could go on for years more, creating unavoidable issues of political accountability.
Illustration: Yusha
Other arguments are just as convincing. For example, that Russia should not be allowed to dictate when Ukraine holds elections, or that Ukrainians are fighting, because they want theirs to remain a free European state. Likewise, that “democracy is not a peacetime luxury,” and that in time of war, corruption and the hiring and firing of critical personnel for reasons of loyalty, rather than merit, are unaffordable.
All of this is true and Zelenskiy has questions to answer on every count. That fact was underscored again on Wednesday morning, when anti-corruption investigators raided the home of his administration’s deputy head, Iryna Mudra. Nevertheless, when Fedorov said the complexities of holding a ballot in wartime could be addressed, or implied that holding elections would defy Moscow, he was misguided and surely knows it.
Perhaps the longstanding logistical hurdles to holding a vote universal and reliable enough to command trust could be overcome. It is possible that with enough preparation, the about 10 million Ukrainians who have been displaced could be given a fail-safe way to vote on the Diia (Action) app that Fedorov developed as minister for digital transformation, a post he held from 2019 until last year. Maybe getting tens of thousands of front-line soldiers to a reliable secret ballot is a problem that could be solved without risking their lives or Ukraine’s defense, too. Maybe.
However, without extensive cooperation from Moscow, it is inconceivable that a safe and meaningful election could be held in areas that are within glide-bomb distance of the front. And now that Russia is firing near-daily barrages across the entirety of Ukraine and Kyiv has run out of interceptors to stop the most powerful ballistic missiles, just the thought of civilians gathering outside polling stations should be enough to end all discussion.
Moreover, holding a wartime vote would not defy Russian President Vladimir Putin. It would answer his prayers. Russia’s leader has been calling for Ukrainian elections for years. His goal is to sow doubts about Zelenskiy’s legitimacy as a negotiating partner, and to divide and destabilize the target of his invasion through the inevitable political polarization that such a vote would bring.
Ukraine cannot afford these distractions. It is about to face the most brutal winter of the war as a result of its lack of missile defenses. Preparing for that challenge must now be the focus of the nation and most Ukrainians understand this. There is no clamor for elections within Ukraine, only in the Kremlin, and among the populist politicians and influencers of the West who like to parrot its propaganda. Moreover, while Fedorov ranks high among Ukrainian politicians in terms of trust, he was added to regular voting-intention polls only last month and still has a distance to go before he could beat Zelenskiy.
All of this could change quickly with peace, after which the popularity of Ukraine’s wartime president is likely to plummet.
That might explain why Zelenskiy has said that, as soon as a ceasefire is in place, he would call a presidential vote to run alongside a referendum on the settlement. This is a self-serving proposal, but abiding by the Ukrainian constitution and waiting for the bombs to stop before attempting a nationwide election is the only sane choice.
Zelenskiy made a mistake when he fired Fedorov. The younger man’s brief six-month tenure at defense was marked by improved battlefield performance, combined with high levels of friction over strategy with top Ukrainian commanders. He was offered a return to government with a vague new portfolio, but the damage was done.
The same wartime imperative that makes Fedorov’s call for elections so wrong also argues for Zelenskiy find a way to bring him back into government, even at defense, putting his own political interests aside despite his rival’s now public presidential ambitions. As long as the country is at war, it would be inexcusable not to.
Fedorov has proved effective, innovative, untainted by scandal and trusted by the public. That combination is rare in Ukraine or, for that matter, anywhere else.
Marc Champion is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Europe, Russia and the Middle East. He was previously Istanbul bureau chief for the Wall Street Journal. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
In 40 years of watching politics, I have never seen anything quite like Taipei mayoral candidate Puma Shen’s (沈伯洋) breed of politician. He has a presence that commands attention, and a combination of qualities that appear to be the result of powerful political currents. What is it that makes Shen different? Throughout the past decades of local elections, I have not seen anyone seriously discuss a long-term vision for urban planning, let alone with the kind of clarity and insight that Shen possesses that compels people to keep listening. He is an exceptional storyteller, with an ability to present a vision
If Taiwan falls, the true battle moves from the beaches into the concrete streets. Western analysts fixate on the invasion phase. They end wargames when missiles stop flying and submit policy papers after the fate of a beachhead is decided. This narrow focus ignores the grim reality of “the day after.” To address this blind spot, the Irregular Warfare Center (IWC) published a seminal study on March 5, 2026, titled China’s Way of Occupation: Implications for Taiwan. Authored by Jan K. Gleiman and others, the report analyzes Beijing’s actions in Tibet, Xinjiang (East Turkestan), and Hong Kong to expose a chilling playbook
Taiwanese writer Chu Yu-hsun (朱宥勳) this month spoke out about the difficulties of judging literary competitions when nearly 40 percent of the novel submissions he reviews appear to be generated by artificial intelligence (AI). He said he would refuse to serve as a judge for any literary award that does not explicitly prohibit the use of AI in creative writing. The use of AI in creative and academic work has become increasingly common. My son, who attends National Chengchi University, says he is exasperated after working to complete assignments on his own, only to receive lower grades than classmates who used
Freedom of expression is a precious gift from the times, civilization and history, Hong Kong writer Hon Lai-chu (韓麗珠) said on Wednesday last week when she received the Golden Tripod Award, the highest honor in Taiwan’s publishing industry, for her novel Flesh Mountain (祼山). “As a Hong Konger these days, I deeply feel that the freedom to write and publish should not be taken for granted,” she said. She said that for a reason. Hon, who rarely speaks publicly or accept interviews in Hong Kong because it could result in serious consequences, resigned from her long-running columnist post at the Chinese-language Hong
RSS