Trump and Putin seek to remove Zelenskyy, but can Ukraine hold an election amid wartime conditions?

When it comes to Ukraine, two of the world’s most prominent leaders—Donald Trump of the United States and Vladimir Putin of Russia—share a rare point of agreement: their intense aversion to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Both men have made no secret of their desire to see Zelenskyy removed from power, a stance that has sparked debates about leadership, legitimacy, and the feasibility of democratic processes in a nation engulfed by conflict.

On February 19, Trump took aim at Zelenskyy during a public address, claiming that Ukraine’s leader was deeply unpopular and lacked democratic legitimacy. “We have a situation where we haven’t had elections in Ukraine, where we have martial law, where the leader in Ukraine, I hate to say it, but he’s down at four percent approval rating,” Trump declared, painting a picture of a failing presidency. His remarks suggested that Zelenskyy’s grip on power was tenuous at best, undermined by the absence of elections and the imposition of martial law amid Russia’s ongoing invasion.

Five days later, on February 24, Putin echoed Trump’s sentiments, lending credence to the narrative from a different angle. The Russian president claimed that Zelenskyy’s approval ratings were irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. “It actually doesn’t matter how many percent [Zelenskyy] has, four or whatever,” Putin said dismissively. “What’s important is that his rating, according to our data, is exactly twice as low as his possible political rival.” Putin was referring to Valerii Zaluzhnyi, Ukraine’s former top military commander, whom Zelenskyy sacked in early 2024. The Russian leader’s comments hinted at a calculated effort to undermine Zelenskyy by elevating Zaluzhnyi as a potential challenger, even as Putin stopped short of providing concrete evidence to support his claims.

However, both Trump and Putin were off the mark when it came to Zelenskyy’s actual standing among Ukrainians. Far from languishing at a dismal four percent, Zelenskyy’s popularity has proven more resilient than his detractors suggest. Polls conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology reveal a different story: his approval rating climbed from 52 percent in December to 57 percent by February, buoyed in part by his high-profile diplomatic clashes with Trump. These confrontations, rather than weakening him, appear to have rallied domestic support for the Ukrainian president. Still, the same polls indicate a significant undercurrent of skepticism, with 37 percent of Ukrainians expressing distrust in Zelenskyy’s leadership—a figure that reflects broader frustrations with his administration.

Zelenskyy’s critics have not been shy about airing their grievances. They accuse him of stifling free expression, a charge that gained traction as his government cracked down on dissent under the pressures of wartime governance. Corruption, too, remains a persistent thorn in his side. Detractors point to alleged mismanagement within his Servant of the People party and, more critically, within the Ukrainian military, where opaque practices have fueled public discontent. Perhaps most controversially, Zelenskyy’s decision to dismiss Valerii Zaluzhnyi in February 2024 drew sharp condemnation. The move was seen by some as a power play to eliminate a popular figure who could pose a political threat, further deepening the rift between the president and his critics.

Putin’s assertion that Zaluzhnyi represents Zelenskyy’s most formidable rival is not entirely baseless. The former general, now serving as Ukraine’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, commands a robust 62 percent approval rating—outpacing Zelenskyy by a notable margin. With his stocky build and reserved demeanor, Zaluzhnyi cuts a contrasting figure to the more charismatic Zelenskyy, yet his popularity suggests he could be a credible contender in a hypothetical election. However, Zaluzhnyi has consistently distanced himself from any immediate political ambitions. “While the war continues, we all need to work to save the country, not think about elections,” he told the RBC-Ukraine news agency in a rare interview the previous week. His words reflect a pragmatic stance, prioritizing national survival over personal gain during Ukraine’s existential struggle.

Interestingly, Zaluzhnyi has adopted a public relations strategy reminiscent of Zelenskyy’s own rise to power in 2019. Back then, Zelenskyy—a former comedian with no political experience—captivated voters by maintaining an air of mystery, eschewing detailed policy platforms in favor of broad, relatable appeals. Zaluzhnyi, too, keeps his cards close to his chest. He rarely grants interviews, and his social media presence is deliberately sparse, leaving Ukrainians to speculate about his intentions. This calculated reticence keeps him in the public eye without committing him to a divisive political agenda, preserving his appeal as a potential leader-in-waiting.

Zaluzhnyi’s restraint has not stopped him from occasionally weighing in on international matters. On March 6, during a brief speech at London’s Chatham House think tank, he took a swipe at Trump’s administration. He accused it of “destroying the world order” and “doubting the unity of the Western world,” a pointed rebuke that came in response to Trump’s initial call for a snap election in Ukraine. The comment marked a rare break from Zaluzhnyi’s usual silence, signaling his willingness to challenge foreign leaders when he deems it necessary, even as he avoids domestic politicking.

The broader question looming over this transatlantic and Eurasian tug-of-war is whether an election is even feasible in wartime Ukraine. Martial law, enacted in response to Russia’s invasion, has suspended normal democratic processes, including the presidential election originally scheduled for 2024. Zelenskyy has argued that holding a vote under such conditions—while millions are displaced, infrastructure lies in ruins, and Russian forces occupy swathes of Ukrainian territory—would be logistically impossible and potentially destabilizing. His supporters contend that continuity of leadership is essential to maintain national unity and morale in the face of an unrelenting adversary.

Trump and Putin, however, see this as an opportunity to press their case. For Trump, Zelenskyy’s refusal to hold elections fuels a narrative of authoritarian overreach, aligning with his broader critique of the Ukrainian leader as an ungrateful recipient of U.S. aid. For Putin, it’s a chance to delegitimize Zelenskyy’s government, casting doubt on its mandate and amplifying internal divisions within Ukraine. Both leaders, in their own ways, exploit the absence of elections to question Zelenskyy’s right to rule, even as they misjudge his domestic support.

The reality, as borne out by the Kyiv Institute’s polling, is more nuanced. Zelenskyy is neither the universally reviled figure Trump and Putin describe nor the unassailable hero his staunchest allies might claim. His leadership has been a balancing act—navigating a war that has tested Ukraine’s resolve while fending off accusations of overreach and mismanagement. Zaluzhnyi, meanwhile, looms as a wildcard: a popular figure who could reshape the political landscape if he chose to enter the fray, yet one who seems content, for now, to remain on the sidelines.

As Ukraine braces for an uncertain future, the prospect of an election remains a distant and contentious possibility. Trump and Putin may want Zelenskyy out, but the war—and the will of the Ukrainian people—may ultimately dictate whether such a change can occur. For now, the battlefield, not the ballot box, holds the key to Ukraine’s destiny.