 "Ukraine without elections: Wartime necessity or powerplay, is Trump right in doubting Zelenskyy’s intentions?")
US President Donald Trump claimed that Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy had a “4% approval rating” and advised Ukraine to hold elections. Trump didn’t specify the source of his approval ratings claim.
However, his supporters see a broader point in his assertion, given Ukraine has not held elections as it continues to be under martial law since Russia invaded the country. In contrast, Russia, despite being embroiled in the same war, held its presidential elections from March 15 to 17, 2024, and President Vladimir Putin secured 88 per cent of the votes—the highest percentage in post-Soviet Russian history.
The two election situations are viewed against the backdrop of popular perception in Europe that Putin is authoritarian and Zelenskyy is democratic. The Trump camp may not agree with the surmise.
While the source of Trump’s claim on Zelenskyy’s approval ratings may not be known in public, there are reports suggesting that the Ukrainian president’s popularity has waned significantly. The Brussels Times, for example, cited on January 8, 2025, a survey by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS), to say his approval ratings have declined.
The survey polled 2,000 people in Ukraine between December 2 and 17, 2024. The results showed that by the end of 2024, 52 per cent of Ukrainians ‘trusted’ Zelenskyy — that still means a majority of Ukrainians, but sharply down from 77 per cent at the end of 2023.
Impact Shorts
More ShortsThis decline reflects growing fatigue after nearly three years of high-intensity warfare. Meanwhile, distrust in Zelenskyy has nearly doubled, with 39 per cent of respondents saying they ‘do not trust’ him, up from 22 per cent in December 2023.
Zelenskyy’s waning popularity and the politics of war
His critics say Zelenskyy is aware of his declining popularity and is seeking ways to maintain power by continuously fuelling war sentiments rather than pursuing even a ceasefire. While the war approaches its third anniversary, it has seen Zelenskyy extend his tenure — deferring the election that was should have been held in April 2024. Reports also suggest that he has targeted political opponents in the country.
A Reuters report on February 13, 2025, said Ukraine imposed sanctions on former president and opposition leader Petro Poroshenko, froze his assets and barred him from transferring capital out of the country. The domestic intelligence agency, the SBU, justified the move on “national security” grounds.
Poroshenko, one of Ukraine’s wealthiest individuals and leader of the country’s largest opposition party, served as president from 2014 to 2019 before losing to Zelenskyy. The 59-year-old confectionary magnate, often called “the Chocolate King,” has long been a political rival of Zelenskyy and denounced the sanctions as unconstitutional and politically motivated.
The SBU claimed that the sanctions were necessary because of existing threats to Ukraine’s national security, territorial integrity, and sovereignty, as well as obstacles to sustainable economic development.
Alongside Poroshenko, Ukraine also sanctioned jailed oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky, former PrivatBank co-owner Gennadiy Bogolyubov, Viktor Medvedchuk (a close ally of Russian President Putin), and businessman Kostyantyn Zhevago.
These sanctions come at a politically sensitive time, as US President Trump’s push to end the war with Russia raises the prospect of future elections in Ukraine. However, with martial law — imposed since Russia’s invasion in February 2022 — still in place, elections remain prohibited, effectively extending Zelenskyy’s rule beyond his mandate, which was set to expire in May 2024.
Carl Bildt, former Swedish prime minister and co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations, warned that these measures could damage Zelenskyy’s standing in Europe.
Elections on hold, but was peace ever an option?
In her article, Ukraine Can’t Hold Elections During the War. Does It Matter? for the Journal of Democracy, author Anna Romandash highlighted the immense challenges of organising elections amid an ongoing invasion.
Even without martial law, several logistical and security concerns arise: how to conduct voting in Russian-occupied territories, how to ensure voter safety, how to accommodate millions of refugees abroad, and how to provide adequate time and space for political campaigning.
Additionally, elections are costly, and Ukraine—already suffering devastating human losses and generational trauma—faces an economic burden exceeding $51 billion annually due to the war. Yet, Romandash poses a critical question: without fair elections, can Ukraine still call itself a just democracy? And in the face of an existential battle, do elections even matter right now?
A survey by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology found that more than 80 per cent of Ukrainians oppose holding elections during the war. Their reasoning is straightforward: soldiers on the frontlines would be unable to vote, polling stations would be easy targets for Russian missile strikes, and, ultimately, national defence is a greater priority than political campaigning.
Zelenskyy has never issued a public statement indicating that peace is a pre-condition — neither to the previous Biden administration nor to the current Trump administration, nor to any European country — to holding elections in Ukraine.
Russia has consistently called the Zelenskyy government “illegitimate” and has demanded elections for its own reasons. It remains in the realm of speculation whether Putin would have agreed for a ceasefire had Zelenskyy communicated to Russia that Ukraine need to hold election on schedule. The outcome remains speculative as no such request was ever made.
Meanwhile, President Zelenskyy was far from confined—he travelled extensively, securing funds and arms for the war. Since the conflict began on February 24, 2022, he has met with numerous world leaders, including Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who even visited Kyiv. Despite these diplomatic engagements, he never raised the prospect of a ceasefire to facilitate elections.
Wartime elections: A precedence ignored?
In his article Eight Elections During Wartime, author Adam J Berinsky highlights how elections have taken place even amid major conflicts. He notes that just 20 months after the US invasion of Iraq, Americans went to the polls in 2004, with the war shaping much of the presidential race.
Ultimately, George W Bush, positioning himself as a wartime leader, defeated John Kerry, whose military background had initially made him a strong contender.
Berinsky also points out that the 1945 British general election, which resulted in a Labour Party victory over Winston Churchill’s Conservatives, occurred during World War II—demonstrating that wartime elections are not unprecedented.
However, in these examples, the countries holding the elections were aggressors. Ukraine was invaded. In the present case, Russia, the invader, has gone ahead with the elections.
Further, James, writing for After Downing Street, discusses how US law ensures that presidential elections remain on schedule, regardless of conflicts. The US Constitution gives Congress the power to set the election date, a provision solidified by an 1845 federal statute. This law has remained in force for nearly two centuries, with no presidential election postponed under it.
Even during the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln secured re-election in 1864 and Franklin D Roosevelt won third and fourth terms amid World War II. Changing this precedent would require an act of Congress and presidential approval—an unlikely scenario given political divisions and potential judicial challenges.
Patriotism or political convenience?
Zelenskyy may have to answer questions, later if not sooner, explaining his decision to suspend elections in wartime. He may have to satisfy critics whether this was an act of patriotism or a calculated political move.
While security concerns are real, history shows that elections have happened during wars. Zelenskyy’s refusal to even consider a ceasefire for elections, along with his crackdown on political rivals, is good political fodder to his critics who see his stand as a move to stay in power rather than uphold democracy. But as they say, only history can judge whether this was necessary or a misuse of war.
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
