February 4, 2025 - 10:40am
The war in Ukraine has often been framed as the clash of two political systems, with Kyiv portrayed as the besieged democracy striving to defend itself against the onslaught of Russian dictatorship. Yet, through no fault of its own, Ukraine has not been acting very democratically of late.
Since 2019, the country has held neither presidential nor parliamentary elections due to their indefinite postponement under martial law. The Kremlin has long pushed the narrative that this deprives Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky of his legitimacy as leader, and more recently Moscow has used this as a delaying tactic to avoid engaging in peace talks.
This could have remained a largely academic question were it not for US Special Envoy for Ukraine and Russia Keith Kellogg saying the following last weekend: “In most democracies, elections take place even during wartime. I think it’s important. I believe it’s good for democracy.” Inevitably, Russia threw its weight behind these comments, with Kremlin spokesperson Dmitri Peskov claiming that “we are proceeding from the assumption that the Ukrainian President does not have the right to hold such talks.”
Kellogg’s strategy reportedly involves Ukraine heading to the polls following an initial truce with Russia, before the eventual winner negotiates a longer-term peace deal with Moscow. Yet, in reality, such a plan would prove not only difficult but destructive.
Consider the numerous practical obstacles. Moscow’s hold over the occupied territories of Ukraine would make it impossible for voters there to participate. Yet to organise elections without them would demonstrate that the areas are no longer Ukrainian territory — an acknowledgement that Moscow would undoubtedly use in negotiations to claim that Kyiv has already legally recognised the loss.
Should elections be held in person, there is no guarantee that Moscow would resist the opportunity to bomb civilians en masse at rallies or voting booths. Besides, even during a truce, Ukraine would still need soldiers at the front in case Russia did not respect the ceasefire. That raises questions of how people could vote or run for office at the front line or while living abroad as refugees. An alternative would be online voting — a gift to Russian hackers. Whether ballots are counted online or in person, Moscow’s misinformation campaigns would likely be conducted on a massive scale in a bid to replace Zelensky with a pro-Kremlin candidate likely to bow to Russia’s demands in any subsequent peace talks.
All that misinformation could then be used by Putin to sow doubt in the eventual result and further delay peace negotiations by questioning the President’s mandate, with the Kremlin already vowing that there will be no final peace until Ukraine has what Moscow judges to be a legitimate leader. If Putin were to adopt such a tactic, would the conflict be restarted, frozen along current lines, or subject to another election until Moscow is satisfied?
That is not the limit to the benefits Russia could reap. Elections held immediately before negotiations would inevitably be dominated by discussions about the terms of any deal. As candidates competed according to their visions of the next stage, the debates provoked would open up divisions within Ukrainian society. Last year, Ukrainian MP Oleksandr Merezhko even claimed that far-Right groups in the country, determined to keep fighting, would seek to derail any agreement. Moscow could then refuse peace negotiations by claiming that the Kyiv government had been shown not to represent the views of a splintered Ukrainian society.
Zelensky has signalled his openness to run for a second term. He will presumably hope that it proves significantly less stressful than the first. Yet his willingness to potentially hold elections before negotiations is concerning. To do so is to risk Kyiv’s position in peace talks, and its hold over its own country.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeNice try but no cigar.
Even a flawed democratic process is preferable to no democratic process. Europe has used the argument of exigency too often recently for the argument to be credible any longer: In Georgia, in Moldova, in Romania, in Germany, in Austria, among others.
Annulling democracy because the stupid voters voted wrong has become a habit Ursula and her coterie of unelected fire breathing autocrats no longer can or even want to kick. It has to stop.
And where precisely has the precedent been set, apart from by the USA in 1944 when the war was external to their lands? It’s a ridiculous notion that helps only the enemy.
Maybe Russia could hold a free and fair election at the same time? It’s been much longer since they’ve had one than the Ukrainians after all
Wasn’t an elected President overthrown in a CIA coup in 2014?
Didn’t Zelensky run on a platform of friendship with Russia?
Why would an election result be trusted by anyone?
Spot on.
America should have stayed out to start with, dating back to 2014 if not earlier. But we have people who can’t help themselves, self-appointed masters of the universe who view other nations and their people as interchangeable pawns.
Zeleksky can “signal” whatever he wants; his actions are what counts and they have been anti-democratic. If an election was held, do we think he’d win?
America and Britain were signatories to the Budapest Memorandum though so I believe it’s right they provided arms to Ukraine.
As Volodymyr Zelensky has pointed out, the Ukrainian Constitution prohibits holding elections when martial law is in effect. An opinion poll found that over 80% of Ukrainians agree that elections should wait until the war is over, mainly due to practical issues.
So any talk about holding elections in Ukraine is driven by politics, and perhaps propaganda, rather than by practical demand. Holding elections would be difficult and their result would not really matter. No use even discussing the topic, in my opinion, when there is so much else more important.
Elections are the best, most reliable opinion polls.
Maybe Russia should hold fair ones now and again
> Should elections be held in person, there is no guarantee that Moscow would resist the opportunity to bomb civilians en masse at rallies or voting booths
The author is casually making a claim that Moscow is constantly looking for every opportunity to maximise civilian casualties. Lovely.
It’s what Ukraine did while Russia was conducting voting in Donbass.
Transference is an amazing thing. Much of the Western “reporting” on the conflict is explained by this phenomenon.
I’m not sure it is a “casual” claim, considering everything we know about Moscow and its methods.
And your evidence for Russia’s restraint from selecting civilian targets is where exactly?
I’m not sure if any of this is relevant. The war is between the US and Russia (with the unfortunate Ukrainians having the privilege of dying and having their country destroyed) so the US and Russia need to start talking. The abandonment of diplomacy has been one of the inexplicable as well as unforgivable features of this war.