Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has delivered a blunt rejection of proposals to hold national elections while the country remains at war with Russia, warning that such a vote under present conditions would act as a “tsunami for the state” capable of tearing Ukraine apart. In remarks made during a closed-door briefing with journalists on Saturday and released publicly on Sunday, the Ukrainian leader framed the idea as not merely impractical but actively dangerous to national unity and survival.
“I believe that during a war like this, elections in general carry significant risks,” Zelenskyy told reporters. “Elections right now are a tsunami for the state, one that would tear Ukraine apart.” He went further, stating that moving toward elections in the current circumstances would amount to deliberately destroying the country. “If we want to destroy the country, then we can move toward elections during this kind of war.” His strategy, he insisted, remains focused on steering Ukraine through the conflict to its conclusion while preserving an independent and sovereign state.
The comments marked Zelenskyy’s first direct public response to a high-profile challenge from within his own former inner circle. Last week, Mykhailo Fedorov, the popular former defense minister who was dismissed in July, released a video calling for wartime elections. Fedorov argued that Ukrainian democracy “cannot be held hostage by Russia” and that the country needed a mechanism to restore a full democratic process even amid prolonged fighting. The call represented one of the most open internal challenges to Zelenskyy’s authority since Russia’s full-scale invasion began in February 2022.
Fedorov’s dismissal itself had already triggered political turbulence and public protests. A longtime ally of the president and a figure associated with technological modernization of Ukraine’s defense efforts, Fedorov held the defense portfolio for only six months before being removed amid reported tensions with the military leadership. His subsequent demand for elections elevated the internal debate into a more serious political confrontation. Zelenskyy, for his part, avoided personal attacks. He said he continues to hold “a very positive attitude” toward Fedorov and acknowledged their shared history, while suggesting the former minister had been pushed toward the “wrong things.”
Ukrainian law currently bars elections under martial law, which has remained in force continuously since the early days of the full-scale invasion. The legal prohibition is only one of several formidable obstacles. Organizing a vote that could be considered legitimate would require secure participation by soldiers deployed along the front lines, citizens living in territories under Russian occupation, and the millions of Ukrainians who have fled the country as refugees. It would also need to take place without constant disruption from Russian missile and drone strikes. Zelenskyy emphasized that no international partner has offered concrete security guarantees that would make such a process feasible while Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to reject meaningful ceasefire discussions.
“Organizing a vote safely, legitimately, and democratically in Ukraine, with the participation of soldiers on the front line and citizens who fled to other countries to escape the war, requires specific conditions,” Zelenskyy said. Those conditions, he argued, simply do not exist while active combat continues and Russia shows no willingness to pause its offensive operations.
Public opinion appears to align with the president’s caution. An early August poll conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology found that 57 percent of Ukrainians prefer to wait until fighting ends before holding elections. Only a minority support voting while the war is still underway. Analysts have repeatedly highlighted the practical and political risks: incomplete participation could undermine the legitimacy of any result, campaigning could deepen existing social and regional divides, and Russia would almost certainly seek to exploit the process through disinformation, cyber interference, or direct attacks on polling infrastructure.
The debate over elections has simmered for years. Zelenskyy was elected in 2019 for a five-year term that formally expired in 2024. Martial law has extended his mandate, a situation Russia has repeatedly seized upon in propaganda narratives that label the Ukrainian president illegitimate. Both Russian officials and, at times, figures in Western politics have previously floated the idea of wartime voting. Zelenskyy has consistently maintained that elections without adequate security would weaken rather than strengthen Ukraine’s democratic credentials and would play into Moscow’s hands by sowing internal discord at the moment when cohesion is most critical.
The current episode comes at a particularly sensitive moment in the war. Russia continues to exert military pressure across multiple fronts, and Ukrainian officials have reported signs that Moscow may be preparing further mobilization of troops. At the same time, Ukraine faces the ongoing challenges of sustaining Western military and financial support, managing domestic economic strain, and addressing internal governance issues. Political division at home, Zelenskyy warned, would only compound those difficulties.
He framed the choice in stark terms of national survival. Dividing society and the armed forces while soldiers continue to fight and die, he suggested, would undermine the very purpose of the struggle. “I believe that society and soldiers must not be divided,” he said. The risk of dangerous internal developments, he added, must be acknowledged and avoided.
Supporters of holding elections argue that prolonged suspension of voting risks eroding democratic norms and that citizens deserve the right to choose their leaders even under difficult conditions. Fedorov’s intervention gave voice to those concerns, particularly among Ukrainians frustrated by wartime governance, reports of corruption, and the sense that political competition has been frozen. Yet the practical barriers remain immense. Ensuring that votes from the front lines and from diaspora communities abroad are both secure and verifiable would require technical systems and international cooperation that do not currently exist. Any perception that the process was incomplete or manipulated could leave the resulting government weakened and vulnerable to both domestic challenge and Russian exploitation.
Zelenskyy’s position reflects a calculation that unity takes precedence over electoral renewal for as long as the existential threat continues. He has repeatedly stated that he is prepared to discuss elections if partners can deliver the specific security conditions needed to make them safe and inclusive. Until that happens, he insists, the priority must remain ending the war on terms that leave Ukraine intact as a sovereign nation.
The exchange between the president and his former defense minister has exposed underlying tensions that the demands of wartime leadership had largely suppressed. Whether the debate fades or intensifies will depend in part on battlefield developments, the evolution of public sentiment, and the willingness of Ukraine’s allies to engage seriously with the practical requirements of wartime democracy. For now, Zelenskyy has drawn a clear line: under present conditions, elections would not strengthen Ukraine. They would risk tearing it apart.
About The Author
