Volodymyr Zelensky, chairman of Ukraine, was prevented from attending the debate about the future of his nation that took place on February 18, 2025 in Saudi Arabia. In reality, there were no Russian representatives, nor any European Union ones – simply US and Russian representatives, and their Arabian guests.
The meeting was joyfully celebrated in Moscow following a socially beneficial phone call between Russian leader Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump a few days prior.
The fact that Ukraine is not able to determine its own potential is in line with Putin’s approach to its neighbors. Putin has long criticized the legitimacy of the Russian state, or “Kyiv regime,” as he affectionately calls it.
The Trump administration’s actions and words undoubtedly undermined Kyiv’s position and influence, despite the US delegation’s assertion that Ukraine may be involved in coming discussions at some point.
In order to vilify Zelensky and the Russian government, the US is extremely aligning itself with Moscow on a crucial component of the Kremlin’s call for votes in Ukraine as part of any peace package.
The Russian government’s intentional ongoing propaganda campaign to discredit Zelensky’s legitimacy is a way to remove Ukraine’s support from its important allies, and make Zelenskyy – and possibly Ukraine – a partner in negotiations.
Given Russia’s ongoing hostility toward its neighbor and its steadfast refusal to accept any momentary truce, the president’s claims that his nation is available for peace negotiations have been very suspect to numerous observers of its three-year conflict.
The Kremlin continues to propagate the idea that the issue is stems from the absence of any genuine Ukrainian authorities with which it can deal. Putin is thus declare his devotion to peace without making any compromises or commitments required for a genuine dialogue process.
However, painting Zelensky as a “dictator” dampens the passionate support that again greeted him from democratic nations. This, in turn, can adapt to the lessening or even stop of military aid for Kyiv, Putin hopes, allowing him a boost in what has become a war of attrition.
Putin needs a willing partner to help spread the word that Zelensky and the recent Ukrainian authorities are no legitimate representatives of their nation, and the new US management appears to have stepped in to bridge this gap.
Dictating words
Get the tale on primaries.
The US officially discussed Ukraine elections as a crucial component of any peace deal at the conference in Saudi Arabia. Trump himself has raised the possibility of votes, noting in a February 18 hit event:” We have a position where we haven’t had votes in Ukraine, where we have fighting law”.
The US president went on to claim, incorrectly, that Zelensky’s approval rating was down to” 4 %”. According to the most recent polls, the Russian president currently enjoys a 57 % approval rating. A day later, Trump upped the problems, describing Zelensky as a “dictator without votes”.
Such claims echo Russia’s tale that the state in Kyiv is illegal. The Kremlin’s claims regarding what it describes as the “legal aspects related to his]Zelensky’s ] legitimacy” are based on the premise that the Ukraine president’s five-year term as president of Ukraine should have ended in 2024.
And elections in Ukraine may have taken place in May of that year if it hadn’t been for the military laws that Ukraine put in place when the Russian Federation launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February of 2022.
The Ukrainian Martial Law Act directly forbids all votes in Ukraine for the duration of the incident activity.
And while the Ukrainian Constitution simply lists provisions that would apply to the expansion of senate’s powers until martial legislation was removed, legal attorneys in Ukraine tend to agree that this also applies to political powers.
Despite what the legislation says, Washington has recently gotten traction for the Kremlin’s criticism of Ukraine’s democratic institutions and its support for elections there.
Trump’s special minister, General Keith Kellogg, declared on February 1 that elections “need to be done” as part of the harmony approach, saying that elections are the “beauty of a good democracy”.
Poll field trap
Zelensky has stated that votes may be held when the right time is right and is not opposed to elections in process. ” When martial law is over, then the game is in legislature’s court – the parliament next picks a day for votes”, Zelensky stated in a January 2 meeting.
And he appears to have the majority of Ukrainian ‘ support. 69 % of Ukrainians polled in May 2024 agreed that Zelensky should hold office until the end of military rules, after which elections should be held.
The problem, as Zelensky has said, is the schedule and conditions. ” During the conflict, there can be no votes. It’s important to change regulations, the law and so on. These are important issues. But there are also nonlegal, really human problems”, he said on January 4.
Yet Ukrainian opposition leaders concur that this is not the day. Petro Poroshenko, Zelensky’s major political rival, has dismissed the idea of military elections, as has Inna Sovsun, the leader of the opposition Golos Party.
In addition to the operational difficulties of ensuring free and fair elections in the middle of a conflict, the issue may provide logistical challenges for fighting and accessing polling places.
Additionally, it’s important to consider whether and how to incorporate Ukrainian in Russian-occupied provinces, those who have fled fighting, and those who are internally displaced.
Good elections … and poor
Russia did, of course, hold primaries during the latest issue. But the 2024 vote that Putin won with 87 % of the voting was, according to most foreign spectators, neither free nor fair.
Instead, it was a false election that only confirmed what the majority of social scientists will say: Elections are at best a required but unsatisfactory indicator of democracy.
This place is not wasted on Ukrainians, whose commitment to democracy strengthened in the years leading up to the 2022 war. In fact, a survey conducted a few months after the war revealed that 76 % of Ukrainians believed democracy to be the best form of government, an increase from 41 % three years prior.
There are other reasons why Ukraine may be afraid of primaries. Political campaigns may be antagonistic, especially in a world under intense anxiety.
Politicians in Ukraine have made the clear argument that holding elections during the war would destabilize Russian society and undermine inside cohesion in the face of Russian aggression.
Outdoor effect
Then there is the issue about outside effect in any election. Ukrainians have sufficiently political experience with Russian interference to know that the Kremlin will try to put a verdict on the situation.
Russia has since the separation of the Soviet Union in 1991 employed its considerable resources to control Ukraine’s elections through all available methods, ranging from misinformation, economic pressures and incentives to energy coercion, threats and use of crime.
In 2004, Moscow’s electoral manipulations in favor of the pro-Russian candidate, Viktor Yanukovich, led to the Orange Revolution– in which Ukrainians rose up to reject rigged elections.
Nine years later, Yanukovich, who took office in 2010 as president, was ousted thanks to the Ukrainian Revolution of Dignity, which led to the removal of a man many thought of as a Russian stooge in favor of a path toward greater European integration.
Putin’s history of meddling in elections extends beyond Ukraine, of course. Most recently, the Romanian Constitutional Court annulled the country’s presidential elections, citing an electoral process compromised by foreign interference.
An impossible position
In bringing elections as a prerequisite for negotiations, Putin is entering a” catch-22″ trap for Ukraine: The Ukrainian Constitution mandates that elections can only be held after the “hot phase” of the conflict has ended. So without a ceasefire, no election is possible.
However, by refusing to support elections, Ukraine can be seen as the blockade of any peace agreement, refuting a myth that the US administration already believes Kyiv is the source of the issue and needs to be ignored in order for progress to be made.
In other words, the US puts the Ukrainian government in an impossible position by reversing Russian statements that suggested an election was necessary for peace, or agree to the vote and risk internal division and interference, or reject it and permit Moscow and, perhaps, Washington to deny their leaders ‘ legitimacy and impede negotiations on their behalf.
Lena Surzhko Harned is the political science associate professor at Penn State.
This article was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.