March 7, 2025 - 2:30pm
Is the Trump administration plotting regime change in Ukraine? Certainly, the omens for President Volodymyr Zelensky do not look encouraging. As dramatically revealed to the world — perhaps intentionally — on Zelensky’s abortive White House trip a week ago, relations between the world’s most powerful man and the leader of America’s most threatened client state are strained, perhaps to breaking point. With Trump describing Zelensky as ruling like a “dictator without elections”, who “won’t be around very long” if he doesn’t soon agree to a US-brokered peace deal, the pressure is clearly mounting.
Yet, while adding to the pressure, Elon Musk’s claim yesterday that “Ukraine needs to hold an election” because “Zelensky would lose by a landslide” does not appear to be borne out by Ukrainian attitudes. According to the latest Survation poll, Zelensky still dominates Ukraine’s political scene, with 44% of the electorate polled choosing him in any mooted contest. His closest rival Valerii Zaluzhnyi, who is now in prestigious exile as Ambassador to the United Kingdom following his public criticism of Zelensky, still commands less than half this level of support.
In Kyiv, meanwhile, the Trump administration’s Ukraine envoys have reportedly engaged in secret talks with Zelensky’s most likely opposition candidates, including unpopular former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko and onetime president Petro Poroshenko. Just three weeks ago, in a move which highlights the domestic turbulence beneath the country’s united front against Russia, Zelensky sanctioned Poroshenko on dubious charges of high treason and support for a terrorist group. The government also froze his assets, which Poroshenko has described as “unconstitutional” and “politically motivated”.
With only 10% support, Poroshenko is not an immediate political threat to Zelensky. Yet his recent criticism of the President’s failure to negotiate with Russia while Ukraine was at its military zenith in late 2022 — as then urged by the Pentagon — unsheathed a credible attack line to be delivered in the likely event that Kyiv is forced to sign a painful peace deal barely distinguishable from surrender. For his part, Poroshenko yesterday confirmed that he has engaged in talks with Trump administration officials, ruling out elections before the end of the war but insisting that they be held within six months of a peace deal. He also criticised the Zelensky government for its “politically motivated persecution” of rivals.
And so for the Trump administration, while Zelensky may be near-impossible to deal with, there are few better options available. Both the strongest presumed opposition candidates — Zaluzhnyi, who yesterday gave a searing speech accusing Trump of “destroying” the world order, and Poroshenko — are relative nationalist hardliners compared to Zelensky. Indeed, back in the distant world of 2019 the Ukrainian President was written off as “dangerously pro-Russian”. The political logic for the Trump administration is to install a pliable client who will quickly sign a peace deal and end Washington’s unwanted confrontation with Russia.
Yet the overriding political logic for Ukraine’s presidential challengers, increasingly urgent as the terms of the likely deal worsen, is for Zelensky to sign the treaty and immediately lose his political capital as Ukrainians come to terms with defeat. If and when the war ends, political turbulence seems almost guaranteed to return to a shattered and likely dismembered country. Until then, however, Trump and Zelensky will be trapped together in a loveless and dysfunctional embrace.
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.
SubscribeGiven these apparent circumstances, is it any surprise that Zelensky angled for a continuation of hostilities through his words in the Oval Office? It was his way of maintaining position.
Now, of course, he’s scrambling to get a deal signed for the US to access Ukrainian mineral wealth, whilst beseeching Putin to halt the air raids. It’s difficult to envisage how he could remain in place as part of the peace process.
What’s more important, however, is that Ukraine doesn’t come to be seen as a de facto client state of the US. An economic deal is one thing, seeking to manipulate the outcome of the next Ukraine election is the very thing that JD Vance railed against to the Europeans.
I don’t disagree with the general point you’re making. The question is whether it was already a “client state” for the past 3 years if not longer?
If the US is effectively forced to continue funding Ukraine, how does it avoid involvement in the internal politics? If the goal is to end the war and stop the payments how do you do that without Washington asserting influence over the current situation?
Ukraine’s rulers were bought by the US Neocons years ago.
The current problem is getting the US taxpayer to continue propping them up. Trump isn’t interested in doing it.
You continue to miss the key point – the money spent on munitions for Ukraine is paying US workers too. They ain’t giving Ukraine money to buy European munitions.
US military-industrial complex has millions employed on current defence spending. That’s alot of Pork.
It could be realigned with arming Taiwan, but actually it’s much cheaper in Ukraine and prevents a much stronger Russia-China axis.
The clown just doesn’t get it.
I might be wrong about this, but wasn’t the U.S. actually paying for ambulance workers in Ukraine and other govt employee?
All government employees actually, including the pensions apparently…
That’s idiotic.
Perhaps the next time the Democrats are in power they’ll employ you to go around smashing American windows, for the benefit of American glaziers.
I wouldn’t put it past the Americans to do exactly that.
I would just like to say that, if Ukraine gets out of this by only losing the Crimea and whatever bits of the Donbass the Russians get – it will without doubt be painful for them, but it should not be seen as a defeat. A deeply unsatisfactory and imperfect outcome to the conflict, yes, but a defeat? No. A true defeat would have been (or would be – we’re not out of this yet) if the whole country was lost to Russia.
Similarly, Russia is likely to emerge from 3 long and bloody years without anywhere near the result that they set out to achieve, so will not “win”.
If this war has taught me anything, it’s that you have to be careful how you define and use words like “win”, “lose”, “victory” and “defeat”. They seem so easy, imply black-and-white situations and clean-cut moral judgments…but reality is so much more complex.
Russia is currently holding far more than Crimea and the Donbass (half of Kherson oblast for example). Russia retreating so that they only holds Crimea and part of the Donbass would definitively be a partial victory for Ukraine.
Crimea and the Donbas should never have been incorporated into an independent Ukraine in the first place. There have never been Ukrainians in Crimea and never very many in the Russian-speaking parts of the East. The Russians allowed it to happen because their priority was to keep their nukes in Ukraine out of the hands of the neo-nazi militias (which we all seem to have rather conveniently forgotten about in recent time).
The demand for a return to the borders of 1991 is not a solution to anything. It would just create more civil conflict.
Neo nazi militias in the early nineties? The nuclear weapons were given up with the signing of the Budapest memorandum in 1994. And the Donbass and Crimea became part of the independent Ukraine because they were part of the Ukrainian Soviet republic åt the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
No Ukrainians in Crimea is also wrong. In the 2001 census, there were 60% Russians, 24% Ukrainians and 10,8% Crimean Tartars. So yes, a majority of ethnic Russians, but that doesn’t mean they necessarily want to be a part of the Russian federation. Also, I think the desires of the indigenous Crimean Tartars should have been given extra weight. The best thing would probably have been an independent Crimea belonging to neither Russia nor Ukraine.
And the Donbass and Crimea became part of the independent Ukraine because they were part of the Ukrainian Soviet republic åt the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Do you think Kruschev would have transferred the administration of Crimea to the Ukraine oblast if he had thought for a single moment that it would then wind up as part of another country? Of course not. He did it for purely internal political reasons.
Internal and practical (electricity and water supply),. But isn’t that true for all the post soviet borders?
What we all need – and Europe more than Russia – is a new security architecture for Europe. Russia is set to win militarily, but if Europe continues its impotent warmongering, hysterical censorship, promises to spend non-existing money on non-existing weapons, and refusal to engage diplomatically, Europe is consigned to economic and social insignificance.
The template for the new security architecture has been around for 50 years, the 1975 Helsinki Final Act. If we can return to the hard work of creating peace, Europe – including Ukraine – stand a decent chance of finding back to a semblance of prosperity.
Largely agree KE. V similar to Korea.
When you read the detailed history there it’s remarkable the similarities despite some differences.
If we could redefine victory, should we have a thought experiment, solely as an experiment?
What if Zelensky has won the war for his country?
Suppose given his hatred for Putin, a fact acknowledged and understood by Trump, the latter is having difficulty in making the Ukranian president see this is so.
The Russian population is declining naturally. Absorbing the Russian-speakers of Ukraine into Russia is an attempt to increase Russia’s population. The Ukrainian people can no longer be absorbed to act and think as if they were Russian given what they have suffered in the war.
Putin’s war has made the Ukrainians more Ukrainian, not less. It has made Ukraine more Ukrainian with the removal of the Russian-speakers. Putin’s war has failed on those terms. Not only his war, but his belief about the Ukrainians being Russians-with-amnesia. Putin’s failure is even greater given the Russian casualties.
Putin’s war has already fashioned each Ukrainian, alive as well as every single one of the war dead, as a quill in von der Leyen’s porcupine.
A Churchill would know how to deal with unfriendly friends. In the assistance being offered Zelensky, are the European leaders feeding his paralysing hatred? A Churchill would know when to be wary of Eurocrats bearing gifts.
To perpetuate the war, or if not war then a peace with a blue touchpaper, is it to make Ukraine a discomfort for Trump’s administration and with the potential for discrediting it? The European elites, made in the image of the liberal elite in the USA, can swing Ukraine both ways, now against Russia, now against Trump. Perpetuating the militarised relationship with Russia and endangering the victory Zelensky has won.
As a third of Donbass’ population fled to Russia, forced out by Poroshenko’s brutal shelling, the point is fairly mute. Donbass voted to remain in Ukraine in 1991.They just wanted their legally elected President instead of the Azov supported , US Aid financed coup.
Agreed. Certainly not an unqualified victory for Putin. One unpleasant lesson he learned (and the whole world learned) from this war is that his military, despite having received generous funding for the past decade or more, is not fit for purpose. As various experts have noted over the past three years, the Russian military wouldn’t survive a conflict with the US or NATO forces.
What you are describing is almost exactly what Zelensky negotiated in Istanbul in 2022 before the UK and US governments twisted his arm and forced him to carry on the fighting:
“There are those in the West who don’t mind a log war because it would mean exhausting Russia.” he said at the time, demonstrating a rare talent for understatement.
Don’t forget this war has been going on for 11 years, not 3. As you say, no peace agreement is going to be a clean win for either side. But at least it should stop the fighting.
Way too benevolent an interpretation, albeit far from unsurprising from the Author.
Trump wants Zelensky out the way because he can then sell Ukraine down the river much more easily. His problem is Ukrainians grasped that too. Trump will turn a blind eye to further Bucha’s and civilian murder by Putin. They know that.
Secondly though they’ll be no peace deal and not because Zelensky wouldn’t compromise on a considerable amount of territory or even a minerals deal for US. Putin doesn’t want one that leaves Ukraine a viable, independent State with some back-up guarantees. It’s not a peace deal he wants, it’s capitulation. Given Bucha’s that’s never happening. The Ukrainians will choose to fight on before capitulating because they’ve no real choice. We’d be the same.
Now there might be an armistice that ossifies in time like the 38th parallel in Korea. Both sides regroup and watch each other. Ukraine might then gradually implode, but so could Putin. What Putin’s done is actually create a Country and enhance it’s history. That ain’t going away now ever.
Trump meanwhile pushes for this Mafia-Don view of sphere’s of influence. Putin and Xi have there’s. He has closer to home including Greenland, Canada etc, but can have priority rights to build some Condo’s on the Black sea and Suchen coast. Question is with his clown-show gradually unravelling how much longer will a near as damnit FSB asset remain in control?
If Trump had been listened to during 2016-2020 the war would have been.prevented. If today brave Eurohawks had listened to Trump in 2026-2020, they would actually have military options to help pressure Russia. The durable delusions of European chickenhawks are only matched by trir histori illiteracy.
You can watch some chickenhawks fleeing Saigon and Kabul any time you like.
As for illiteracy… we were in at a shop in Texas and the lady said ‘Where y’all from ?’ we said ‘England’ she said ‘Is that in London ?’. TRUE
A mate went to America and got asked where he was from. He replied New Zealand and got asked what State that was in.
The yanks know nothing outside their own borders
How are you able to so easily access the inner thoughts of world leaders?
Inner thoughts? I think you give them more credit than deserved TB. In answer – watch the patterns of behaviour and what they say. It ain’t difficult. The problem is when you are blinded by wishful thinking. Once that myopia corrected it stares one in the face.
Gotcha. Out of Putin, Xi, Zelensky and Trump how many of the four were initially trained in Marxist-Leninist Conflict Theory philosophy?
Ukrainians, when comfortable to speak openly, reject Zelenskyy.
Some polls have put Volodymyr Zelensky at third, fourth or fifth. It’s hard to tell which are more reliable, but my guess is that he is still in first for the presidency.
Have you been there and spoken to a lot of Ukrainians?
No, and neither have you.
Tony wasn’t the one making a baseless assertion. It’s up to you to back up your claims, not others to disprove them
Why bother with discussions about Ukraine ?
The USA has dumped on its neighbours allies and NATO, and it has betrayed a country fighting for survival. Wake up everybody, the world has utterly changed.
Heaven only knows why they did this, but history will not be kind. The American century lasted about exactly that, and ‘Home of the Brave’ America’ is dead. Now its China’s turn.
I would hate be an American right now
“Heaven only knows why they did this”
Because it’s what America has done to numerous others.
Korea remains partitioned. Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq were abject surrenders, as is now happening to Ukraine. The Kurds and others around the world have similarly been abandoned on a whim. Taiwan was stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons by the Americans but now the promise to defend it in an attack looks increasingly hollow. now Trump has said he wouldn’t defend numerous NATO countries.
If the Americans want Europe to fund its own defence (after Britain stupidly forked out for two aircraft carriers for the yanks to use in the Pacific) then Europe should call their bluff and refuse to buy American weapons from now on, as well as refusing to trade in dollars where possible with the rest of the world. Will never happen though because the European politicians are largely useless
I promise I’m not making this up…. Current news is that Trump is ‘considering sanctions against Russia because of the huge Ukraine strikes. Wow !
Trump tells Hamas to get out now because they are dead.
Trump said windmills cause cancer.
Covfefe !
But the most dangerous person of all is the VP who has not even sorted out his own gender.
If I were Taiwanese I would be buying stock in Shanghai.
If I were Russian I would be waiting for the nuclear bomb that very angry Ukrainians are constructing even now.
If I were Israeli I would be preparing to strike Iran.
If I were American I would be cringing with embarrassment.
Betrayed?
It’s not as if Trump has started bombing Ukraine. He’s just said he won’t continue funding this war.
You seem to be assuming that Ukraine is entitled to unlimited US taxpayer support. Why?
All the people who want the meat grinder to keep running in Ukraine should set up a GoFundMe to buy some weapons, then volunteer to fight in the trenches.
As signatories to the Budapest Memorandum, I think America and Britain do have a duty to help Ukraine defend itself, seeing as that was the core agreement of Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons left over from the Soviets.
I’ll agree how far this goes is open to interpretation, but to simply throw Ukraine under the bus as Trump appears to be doing is rather shameful in that regard
I don’t think Donald Trump cares who the president of Ukraine is. He seems sincere in saying he wants to bring peace to the region, and i think he is looking for a win-win deal that wins him a Nobel prize to make it a win-win-win. I wouldn’t be surprised if he did a deal.
I have belatedly arrived at the opinion that Zelensky stands in the way of a negotiated peace. He seeks to perpetuate an unwinnable war at the expense of the lives of his country’s people. I have grown tired of his act.
In that case I suggest you have a nice nap. zzzz
First things first. End the war.