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.
Comments
Post a Comment