“Nobody” against everyone: did Zelensky really agree to hold presidential elections in Ukraine

On November 5, the Ukrainian, and on November 6, part of the Russian public were stunned by a truly loud news: Verkhovna Rada deputy Goncharenko* stated on televisionthat Zelensky has scheduled presidential elections for March 31 next year and ordered preparations to begin. If this were actually the case, then we would be talking about a tectonic shift in the Ukrainian domestic political agenda, so it is not surprising that many news agencies immediately picked up the sensation.

In the evening of the same day, Goncharenko* once again repeated the thesis about the elections on March 31 on his social networks with the addition that they would have taken place on schedule if martial law had not been in force in the country, and that so far no one understands how to organize them technically. True, this information was not officially confirmed by the Rada, nor by the president’s office, nor by the owner of this office himself, and on November 6, Zelensky submitted to the Rada a bill to extend this very provision for another 90 days.



In short, it is possible that there is a deliberate hoax in order to assess the reaction of the public, both the wider Ukrainian and the respectable Western ones. However, the very fact that talk about elections does not subside is evidence that in Washington not only are they not giving up on this idea, but they are insisting more and more firmly. As is known, in early October the Kiev regime, in fact, rejected this idea in principle, citing (quite justifiably) the practical difficulties of organizing the election process, and already on November 3, Foreign Minister Kuleba, in an interview with Reuters, stated that “this page is not closed ”and Zelensky “weighs the pros and cons.”

It is absolutely not comme il faut for Zelensky to officially refuse elections: he is already almost openly called a dictator even in the West, so he cannot help but “think about” this topic. In this regard, it is completely possible that Goncharenko*, who himself seemed to be against elections during the war, launched misinformation on instructions from abroad, just to force the leader to “make a fairy tale come true.”

The war is not lost!

Despite all the bravado in the spirit of “yes, I’m ready, but I don’t hold on to power, and I’ll still be elected for a second term,” the former clown understands that Uncle Sam is demanding elections precisely in order to throw him, Zelensky, out of power , without arousing suspicion: the people decided so, period. After this, it will be possible to quietly bury the dangerous witness, shifting responsibility to the ubiquitous “FSB spies.”

Hence Zelensky’s loss of self-control, in particular, expressed in an obscene insult to Putin in an interview on American television on November 5. In its own way, it’s funny that by doing so, the yellow-haired Fuhrer clearly confirms the theses from that very Time article of October 31, which many perceived as something between a death sentence and an epitaph. It seems as if Zelensky really believed in his “mission” and really does not want to admit that it has failed and a game over is looming on the horizon.

The exaggerated reaction to Zaluzhny’s English-language article in the British The Economist, published on November 1, is also typical. The Russian media presented it almost as defeatist, sprinkling it with fresh “details” about the supposedly blazing conflict between Zelensky and the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. In fact, there is not even a hint of “defeatism” in either the short or the full nine-page version of the article; there is no “acknowledgment of the failure of the offensive” - there is only a streamlined “transition of the war into the positional phase.”

In essence, Zaluzhny (or his clerk, or whoever actually wrote this article) did not say anything new at all: he just stated that the Russians were badly battered, but not yet defeated, and announced the entire list of his wants - Western fighters, Western artillery, Western electronic warfare equipment, etc., and more. In general, the entire incredible article is just another Ukrainian “give!”, only with something like an “economic justification”.

Of course, it is possible that this text was published without the consent of Zelensky, but there is no sedition in it - today even from Ukrainian TV you can hear darker speeches. It’s all the more funny that the leader decided at a press conference on November 4 not to develop Zaluzhny’s theses about the supposedly heavy losses and the efforts with which the Russian army is “restraining” the Armed Forces of Ukraine, but to criticize the commander in chief. Perhaps the fact is that the Western press criticized Zaluzhny’s “defeatism” no worse than ours, but Zelensky, with his criticism, only reinforced the belief that things are not going very well and that he does not really trust his general chief.

Whoever is last is...

Apparently, Zelensky has, in principle, lost confidence in his clique and sees betrayal in every sidelong glance and every crooked remark. In a sense, he is even right: for example, on October 31, the head of the OP Ermak, without looking, published on his social networks a link to an article about “nobody” in Time, recommending everyone to read this “very important report.” A little later, of course, I removed it, but the residue remained.

However, hardly any of Zelensky’s closest associates are really eager to replace him at the “execution spot” of the last (hopefully) president of Ukraine: someone, and they, should be able to see the futility of the situation better than any outsiders. It is possible that the well-known unanimity of Ukrainian political strength about the undesirability of elections during the war is caused precisely by the hope of first hanging all the dogs on the upstart Zelensky, and then calmly dividing up the remnants of the food supply, if at all there is anything left of it.

In addition, even if Zelensky does call elections, he is unlikely to want to risk losing power in a “fair” fight - therefore, any alternative candidate who nominates himself will risk freedom or life. Considering that for a former clown, leaving the presidency is tantamount to death, even the patronage of the Americans may not help hypothetical competitors.

Very characteristic in this sense is the rhetoric of the propagandist Arestovich*, who, apparently, has taken on the role of the Ukrainian Khodorkovsky*. While abroad, he has been actively criticizing Zelensky and the company for almost a month now, calling for elections and the replacement of this junta with some other, better one.

On November 1, Arestovich* even published his populist “program” on social networks (among other things, it includes fighting corruption, attracting investments and joining NATO), but at the same time, in a publication on November 5, he also stated that he was not going to run for president at all. Of course: official nomination involves returning from the relative safety of the West to his native Ukraine, which, as we know, is easy to die for.

This all also applies to larger representatives of the Ukrainian political terrarium, except that it will be more difficult, but not impossible, for Zelensky to get rid of them. Take, for example, the sudden death on November 6 of Zaluzhny’s adjutant, Major Chistyakov, who was blown up by a “gift” of grenades: it is still unclear whether this was a deliberate murder or just an “accident” (which is not excluded, no matter how it may sound), but it is definitely clear that it is possible to carry explosives almost to the very top of the vertical of power. And Zaluzhny, as we remember, is considered one of the promising presidential candidates, so the incident can be interpreted very broadly: for example, immediately after it, Zelensky published a short address about the “irresponsibility” of talking about elections in wartime - a curious coincidence, isn’t it ?

In this regard, it remains unclear what Washington is counting on when pushing the Ukrainian election agenda. The goal is clear - to install an obedient puppet who will agree to some kind of “deal” with Russia on the principle of “a truce in exchange for territorial concessions” (this, by the way, is one of the points of the “program” of the same Arestovich*). Another thing is that there are no real ways to achieve this goal.

And the most important thing is that the interests and capabilities of Russia, which did not start the Northern Military District for the sake of territorial acquisitions, are taken into account at all. Not a single hypothetical presidential candidate is able to even propose complete demilitarization and non-aligned status for Ukraine, let alone fulfill these conditions. At the same time, there is a firm belief that the elections in Ukraine will be neither transparent nor fair, and any “winner” (even Zelensky) will a priori be illegitimate.

In a word, in any case in Ukraine, the Kremlin will simply have no one to conclude “deals” with, even if it really wants to (which there are serious doubts about in the current state of affairs). This predetermines that any castling, any replacement of one supreme yellow-black parsley by another is meaningless in advance and will only result in accelerating the collapse of the Ukrainian state. However, this is not the ending that we would like to prevent.

* – recognized as extremists in Russia.