The debate over Ukraine’s elections and future leadership is intensifying. With peace talks gaining momentum, calls for elections are growing louder, and both the Russian and American sides are questioning Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s legitimacy. However, criticism from the Kremlin and the Oval Office has inadvertently solidified his position.
For months, Zelensky’s approval ratings, though always high, had been under pressure due to military setbacks, internal disputes, and questions over governance. That changed almost overnight. Recent polling shows a sharp rise in his ratings, with the increase directly tied to Ukraine’s growing rift with the United States, creating a strong rally-round-the-flag effect.
When U.S. President Donald Trump cast Zelensky as the obstacle to his “instant peace” plan, the Ukrainian president became a political martyr — positioned as a leader standing up to a powerful external force demanding concessions. As seen in past crises, Ukrainian political survival depends on defiance, not accommodation.
Zelensky is not alone in this. French President Emmanuel Macron sharpened his image as a European strongman by challenging Trump’s America-first policies. In Canada, the governing Liberal Party gained 15% as Trump waged his campaign of threats and tariffs. Even U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has used his positioning as a "bridge to Washington" to consolidate his leadership. Politicians across the West are having their “Love Actually” moment, courtesy of Trump’s bullying.
"Politicians across the West are having their “Love Actually” moment, courtesy of Trump’s bullying."
Yet Zelensky is not merely posturing — he is actively resisting U.S. pressure to accept terms that would weaken Ukraine’s position. This resistance has transformed him from a leader facing difficult re-election prospects into a figure once again seen as indispensable.
Trump wants Zelensky gone, but he faces a significant problem: Who would the U.S. want as its preferred candidate? The idea that Washington could simply appoint a pro-American successor reflects a misunderstanding of Ukraine’s political landscape — a mistake Russia has made repeatedly.
The most likely contender is Yulia Tymoshenko, who has maintained political relevance through decades of reinvention. However, despite her longevity, Tymoshenko has never won a presidential election, and her appeal is increasingly limited to specific voter blocs. If Washington backed her, it would be backing a losing bet.
Another name emerging in speculation about private talks with the Trump administration is former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, Zelensky’s primary political rival. Like Tymoshenko, Poroshenko is a fixture of Ukrainian politics — an old-guard figure with a sizable anti-rating. His time as president left deep divisions, and while he remains influential, his chances of winning the presidency are slim. His polarizing legacy makes him an unlikely unifying candidate with little chance of securing a national mandate.
That leaves former Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and current Ukrainian Ambassador to the U.K. Valerii Zaluzhnyi, frequently mentioned in speculation. However, the idea that Zaluzhnyi could become a pro-American candidate overlooks the reality of his position. Zaluzhnyi’s primary allegiance is to Ukraine’s military, not any foreign political agenda. Aligning too closely with U.S. demands — especially those perceived as capitulatory — would risk alienating the Ukrainian electorate and could potentially even be seen as treasonous by former Ukrainian military comrades.
While Zelensky is often criticized for his domestic policies and personnel choices, in foreign policy, he channels the will of the Ukrainian people. His firm stance earns him their trust. Sure, another negotiator could be sent, but they would lack legitimacy and largely share the same position.
If a leader were to concede to Russian demands, history suggests they wouldn’t last long. Ukraine has a well-established tradition of overthrowing leaders who serve Russian interests (see the Orange Revolution and the Revolution of Dignity). Any deal would need not just a president’s signature; it would require the backing of the Ukrainian people.
More importantly, it would need the acceptance of Ukraine’s military — one million men and women who have sacrificed too much to take orders from a Trump-anointed puppet. If Washington believes it can install a leader who tells them to lay down their weapons, why would they listen? Why wouldn’t they turn their guns (and shiny Western tanks) on them instead? The idea that Ukraine’s war can be resolved by simply reshuffling its leadership is naive at best, and at worst, a recipe for even greater chaos.
The irony is that those most eager to see Zelensky replaced — whether in Washington or Moscow — may have done the most to secure his continued leadership. Attempts to sideline him and paint him as an obstacle to negotiations have only strengthened his position. Just as external pressure has historically galvanized Ukrainian resistance, it has also cemented Zelensky’s role at the helm. With no viable pro-American alternative and no serious internal challengers gaining momentum, the Ukrainian president appears poised to remain in power for the foreseeable future.
Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed in the op-ed section are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Kyiv Independent.
Shlomo Ben-Ami
