Ukraine’s elections: Red herring or actual debate?

Today’s story is about Ukraine — inside Ukraine, concerning Ukraine. If you Ctrl-F this story, you might find “Ukraine” mentioned more than the country invading it (Russia). Which might be a certain someone’s exact intention, but we’ll get to that.

But why today’s Ukraine focus? President Zelensky has suddenly announced Ukraine could hold elections within 60-90 days… if the US and other partners guarantee security.

• So first, why now? Good opening question, dear reader.

To start, it’s the pressure. President Trump used an interview on Monday to suggest Zelensky is “using war not to hold an election“. Putin (who has killed, jailed, or exiled any opposition) has long argued this same point, seeking to declare Zelensky illegitimate.

It’s also the context. You’ll recall Zelensky has been dealing with a massive corruption scandal, which might give credence to the idea that folks want change at the top.

Then, the reaction. Rather than repeat his past answers about Ukraine’s constitutional ban on elections during martial law, Zelensky has now reframed the debate, confirming he’ll call elections as soon as the US provides the necessary security (more on that below).

• Second, how would elections even work? 

There are now an estimated five million Ukrainian refugees abroad, four million displaced internally, three million under Russian occupation, and another million defending their homeland in the trenches. That’s almost a third of Ukraine’s population facing some massive if not insurmountable obstacles to voting.

Then for everyone else, there’s the question of how you actually get to the voting booth (or run an election campaign) while a certain someone is still launching 300-500 missile and drone strikes at you each day, which gets us to…

• Third, which security guarantees, exactly?

Zelensky is pointing out that Russia should stop attacking Ukraine during the election, which means either a) Putin accepting a ceasefire, or b) Trump imposing one on him.

Yet neither of those things has happened, or even come close. In fact, depending on how you count it, Putin has rejected (and Zelensky has accepted) all six US ceasefire calls this year.

As for Putin’s demands that Ukraine cede more (unconquered) land? Rather than credible offers, these seem like rhetorical ploys to keep framing Ukraine as the obstacle to peace.

And therein lies the fundamental contradiction Zelensky is seeking to highlight here: Russia (and now the US) are pushing for elections, while either creating (Putin) or acquiescing to (Trump) the very conditions that make elections impossible.

Anyway, let’s pretend an election somehow comes together, then…

• Fourth, who would actually win?

One of the few things all Ukrainians seem to agree on right now is they don’t actually want wartime elections, which themselves poll at barely 10%.

But let’s say Ukraine figured out all the above logistical, constitutional, and security challenges, the latest credible polling suggests it’d then be a tight race between the top-polling (if flagging) Zelensky himself, and… his own former top commander, Zaluzhny!

That popular ex-general has criticised his president’s strategy (hence the exile to London as ambassador), but his bottom line is the same: “Peace on Russia’s terms is not peace; it’s capitulation.” Plus, he not only opposes wartime elections, but says he has no plans to run.

Oh, and guess who polls in a distant third place? Zelensky’s popular spymaster, Budanov.

So democracies are funny and sometimes divisive things, but based on current polling, Zelensky either wins re-election, or gets replaced by someone just like him. So…

• Finally… why are we even talking about this?

Now we’re at the core! Why push for elections that are either impossible or would just ratify if not harden the status quo?

We can only guess at Trump’s thinking, but Putin clearly doesn’t want elections. Think of the contrast: once his Ukrainian foe gets (re)legitimised at an actual competitive ballot box, then what does that make Putin?

Rather, Putin’s sudden concern for Ukrainian democracy is about destabilising Ukraine, delegitimising its leader at home and abroad, putting Ukraine back on narrative defence, and shifting attention away from Putin’s own nightly hits on Ukrainian homes.

So, while this big Ukrainian election question is dominating the headlines right now, maybe the bigger question is… should it?

Intrigue’s Take

We said this briefing was about Ukraine, but it’s about something else, too: any fight plays out not just on the battlefield, but across broader arenas, like…

• Perception: Ukraine’s early info strategy managed to cast this as David vs Goliath, but Russia’s current inforwar strategy is classic DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender roles). That perception battle helps shape…
• Legitimacy: This concept keeps evolving, particularly amid a broader shift towards what some dub competitive authoritarianism — a kind of pageantry that seeks to legitimise power, absent any genuine competition. And that enables…
• Judo: We’re left in this bizarro world of despots using the momentum of a rival’s own democratic ideals — whether elections or free speech — against them.

And that, dear Intriguer, all places media — including your favourite ex-diplomats — in a tricky spot. But the advantage of doing our own thing means we not only have the freedom to structure an entire counterterrorism piece using Taylor Swift lyrics, but can continue to shine a light on our world’s authoritarian judo.

Sound even smarter:

• The latest polling suggests 62% of Americans want Ukraine’s self-defence to prevail, and  64% support sending US weapons (up 9 points from last year).