Donald Trump thinks Ukraine needs a new president. Vladimir Putin agrees, as does Elon Musk, and the point was once made by that great friend of Ukraine, the late Sen. Lindsey Graham. So, let’s imagine that, somehow, fair and free elections with no Russian interference were to be held tomorrow in Ukraine. Who would win?
According to a September 23 public opinion survey conducted by a respected polling outfit, the winner would either be Ukraine’s incumbent president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, with 23% or Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, the former commander in chief of Ukraine’s Armed Forces, with 22.9%. Former President Petro Poroshenko comes in third with 10.7%. Fourth place goes to Zelenskyy’s intelligence aide, Kyrylo Budanov, with 9.5%, while fifth goes to the far-right politician and commander of the 3rd Army Corps of the Ukrainian Ground Forces, Andrii Biletsky, with 8.7%. Other polls show similar results.
The important point is not that Zelenskyy would probably stay in office with a renewed mandate and greater legitimacy, but that the alternatives would likely pursue an equally principled, pro-Ukrainian patriotic policy and, like Zelenskyy, reject any Russo-American deal that is tantamount to a capitulation.
A new president would be no less of a hardliner with respect to Russia than the old president.
Here’s Zaluzhny, currently the ambassador to London, on peace with Russia: “Ukraine has been fighting for survival for 11 years. Yet even now, some Western nations call on us to negotiate with those who came to kill us . . . Peace on Russia’s terms is not peace; it’s capitulation . . Calls to rush into a comprehensive peace deal are dangerously premature. True peace cannot be achieved by signing papers while Russian missiles are killing civilians.”
Here’s Poroshenko: “Peace [must be] on Ukraine’s terms. Under no circumstances through the surrender of territories or anything else; peace when Russia becomes weak and demonstrates a lack of success with military operations, along with the effectiveness of international sanctions, will be forced to sign for peace.”
Here’s Budanov about Russia’s targeting of Ukrainian civilians: “Another massive combined strike by the Russians on peaceful Ukrainian cities. Residential buildings hit. Civilians under the rubble . . . I appeal to those who are still calmly observing the Kremlin’s crimes. What other ‘business prospects’ are you trying to see through the dust from destroyed Ukrainian buildings? . . . Thank you to everyone who helps us fight evil.”
And here’s Biletsky about Russia’s mendacious claims of having captured the city of Sviatohirsk: “I want to address the Russian military and military-political leadership. Take off your clown noses and multicolored wigs. Don’t make fools of yourselves. 60 Mechanized Brigade of 3 Army Corps has full control of the city. In fact, this is our rear area.”
Neither in substance nor style are any of Zelensky’s presidential opponents pushovers.
Putin knows this, of course. His insistence on new elections is therefore little more than a blatant attempt to delegitimize Zelenskyy (who, in contrast to Putin, won fair and square), sow divisions within Ukraine, and thereby destabilize the country while making it more vulnerable to Russian aggression.
The pro-election electoral rhetoric is thus a smokescreen. Its adherents want Zelenskyy gone in the belief that it will somehow change the fundamentals of a peace agreement, or because he’s a fearsome opponent.
Fortunately for Ukraine, outside powers will not determine its future. Ukrainians have agency, and their drones are pummeling the Russians on the battlefield, with anything from 1,000-2,000 Russian soldiers being killed or seriously wounded every day.
Europeans have been forced to stand up for Ukraine and have learned that they can affect historical trajectories without the United States.
The US could, of course, return to its demand that Putin end the war, thereby bringing the peace that Ukraine and the rest of the continent so crave.
Alexander Motyl is a Professor of Political Science at Rutgers University-Newark.
Europe’s Edge is CEPA’s online journal covering critical topics on the foreign policy docket across Europe and North America. All opinions expressed on Europe’s Edge are those of the author alone and may not represent those of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis. CEPA maintains a strict intellectual independence policy across all its projects and publications.
