Moscow’s propaganda machine is trying to discredit Volodymyr Zelensky as illegitimate to intentionally sabotage the upcoming Peace Summit in Switzerland. More broadly, the Kremlin’s information operation aims to capitalize on a complex — and potentially explosive — political issue in Ukraine to corrode the embattled country’s social cohesion and undermine Western unity and support.
[T]he only obstacle in the way of elections in the country is not Zelensky clinging to power, but Putin clinging to Ukraine.
Questioning the legitimacy of Ukraine’s political leadership is not new to the Russian disinformation ecosystem. In 2014, Moscow labeled the newly elected pro-European president Petro Poroshenko “illegitimate.” Now it’s Volodymyr Zelensky’s turn. Since Zelensky’s five-year term as president of Ukraine expired on May 20, Russian officials have repeatedly drawn attention to the fact that he still continues to serve as the head of state of the embattled country. During a recent visit to Belarus, Russian President Vladimir Putin openly questioned Zelensky’s legitimacy as Ukraine’s president. While repeatedly stressing that Russia is ready to negotiate, Putin said, “We must be completely sure that we are dealing with legitimate authorities.” Did the Ukrainian comedian-turned-politician scrap the elections in a desperate bid to hold on to power? Is his rule illegitimate beyond May 20, rendering any negotiations with his dictatorial regime a futile exercise? Hardly. Putin’s and other Kremlin officials’ statements are just one facet of a broader disinformation campaign. (READ MORE: The US Is No Longer a Trustworthy Ally)
To start with, the Kremlin’s twisted narrative is rooted in the belief that Ukraine has been under the control of a U.S.-funded puppet government since 1991, set up by Washington as a bulwark against Russia. Moscow insinuates that every major event leading to a pro-Western shift in the past 20 years in Ukraine were due to Western meddling. It was either a CIA operation or a Soros-funded coup. According to this narrative, the pivotal moment when Ukraine truly lost its status as an independent state was the Maidan Revolution or “Euromaidan” in 2013-2014, which culminated in the pro-Russian then-president Viktor Yanukovich fleeing to Russia. According to Russia, the revolution was a coup supported by the U.S. and the EU to install Petro Poroshenko as the leader of a “puppet junta.” Zelensky’s victory at the 2019 presidential elections, which was allegedly marred by significant irregularities and manipulations, was portrayed by Russia as reflecting the desires of the country’s American overlords rather than expressing the will of the people. Zelensky received 75 percent of the vote in 2019 to Poroshenko’s 25 percent during the second round, and within days was congratulated by virtually every Western leader independent of their party background from Polish President Andrzej Duda to U.S. President Donald Trump and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. At the same time, Vladimir Konstantinov, head of the Russian-controlled Crimean Parliament, succinctly summed up the Kremlin’s position in March: “After the 2014 coup in Kyiv, everything is illegitimate, including all institutions and election results.”
Are they? Today, legally speaking, it is the legal regime of martial law — instituted due to the country being at war — that explicitly forbids holding all Ukrainian and local referendums, as well as any presidential, parliamentary, or local elections, and enacting changes to the Constitution. This legislation was put into effect by former President Petro Poroshenko, with relevant passages remaining unchanged since 2000. Although the Ukrainian Constitution expressly prohibits holding parliamentary elections under martial law, the text is silent on presidential elections during war. A minimum of 10 percent of the Verkhovna Rada’s deputies could appeal to the Constitutional Court to hold elections, but members are reluctant to do so, mainly because of the fear that an appeal would only feed the Kremlin’s propaganda machine.
In addition, the agreement reached in November 2023 during an EU parliament–facilitated dialogue also highlights a relatively unified political resolve regarding the issue of elections. Members of the Verkhovna Rada, including significant opposition parties, agreed to postpone national elections until after the war and the lifting of martial law. This decision was based on the widely held belief that conducting competitive and inclusive elections during a full-scale war would be unfeasible.
The United Kingdom reached the same conclusion when it postponed parliamentary elections for more than 4 years while it was locked in a total war against Hitler during World War II. In Ukraine’s case, it would be extremely challenging for a large portion of the population, including hundreds of thousands serving in the army and millions more scattered across Europe as refugees, to participate in the vote. Furthermore, Ukrainians living in territories occupied by Russia would have to be excluded entirely. Ukrainian society would almost certainly question the results of an election held under total war and occupation as free and fair. A March survey conducted by the Kyiv-based think tank Razumkov highlighted the lack of domestic support for a wartime election, with only 12 percent of participants believing it would unite Ukrainian society, while 45 percent anticipated it would cause further division. Overall, a mere 22 percent of participants favored holding any form of national election during the war.
Although there is a wide consensus on not holding war-time elections, domestic dynamics are more nuanced. Mounting setbacks on the front, delayed Western weapons shipments, a passage of a divisive new mobilization law as well as continued corruption scandals have been chipping away at Zelensky’s public support. His favorability rating stood at 60 percent in February (down from 77 percent in December), according to the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology. At the same time Zelensky’s political opposition is getting louder. Although they do not question Zelensky’s legitimacy beyond May 20, they do increasingly call out the president for his allegedly autocratic leadership style and centralization of power, in hope of reaching some kind of power-sharing arrangement with the government. (READ MORE: What the Red Ball Express Teaches Us About Ukraine)
By loudly questioning Zelensky’s legitimacy, the Kremlin wants to sow chaos leading to political instability and societal unrest. Ukrainian intelligence services already warned about the operation dubbed Maidan-3 in November 2023. Moreover, the same narrative could come in handy to explain Moscow’s unwillingness to participate in any sort of peace negotiations. According to Putin’s interpretation of the Ukrainian Constitution, Zelensky should resign and the speaker of the Parliament should step up as acting president. Only 10 percent of the Ukrainian population would support such a scenario, according to a February poll by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology. Ukrainian attitudes toward the parliament is steadily declining, and according to a recent poll its trust rating is trending at around 19 percent. Moreover, on May 28, Speaker Ruslan Stefanchuk rebuked Putin’s interference declaring that “Volodymyr Zelensky remains and will remain Ukraine’s president until the end of martial law.”
The Kremlin’s portrayal of Zelensky’s allegedly illegitimate rule as the only obstacle to negotiations and peace is just a part of the Kremlin’s disinformation strategy. The Russian president’s real goal is underlined by the fact that the ousted pro-Russian ex-president Yanukovych joined him in Minsk. Putin’s goal is the same as before the full-scale invasion: regime change in Kyiv.
As tensions are running high in Ukraine, policymakers in the U.S. should remember: the only obstacle in the way of elections in the country is not Zelensky clinging to power, but Putin clinging to Ukraine.
