Volodymyr Zelenskyy—once a symbol of Ukrainian resilience and global wartime leadership—now confronts a serious domestic crisis largely of his own making. With anti-corruption institutions under threat, public demonstrations underway, and mounting international concern, his ability to rebound hinges on restoring institutional trust, honoring democratic norms, and maintaining support amid Russia’s intensifying war.
Since 2019, Zelenskyy’s journey has been defined by two distinct political arcs. Initially elected on promises of ending corruption and reforming entrenched political elites, he faced early disappointment when progress lagged. His popularity dipped dramatically through 2021 alongside stalled reforms and unclear leadership direction. Critics argued he had overpromised and underdelivered.
The Russian invasion of 2022 marked a pivotal moment, during which Zelenskyy emerged as a leader in times of war. By choosing to stay in Kyiv, delivering daily speeches to the public, and skillfully engaging with global media, he became an international symbol, garnering Western backing and fostering national cohesion. This era shaped a fresh political agreement centered around him—a coalition born out of crisis rather than typical political processes.
However, as the cohesion fostered by wartime efforts reinforced his authority, underlying vulnerabilities began to re-emerge beneath the facade of unity. Not long ago, new laws bringing Ukraine’s two primary anti-corruption agencies under governmental oversight sparked the most significant internal unrest since the conflict began. Thousands took to the streets across the country, as EU representatives, Western partners, and even Ukrainian military personnel expressed their concerns.
Under stress, Zelenskyy changed direction and introduced new laws to reinstate autonomy to these agencies. Nevertheless, his standing remains damaged. Detractors now wonder if he leans towards authoritarianism, thereby weakening the democratic principles he promised to maintain.
First, restating the need for transparent governance. To restore trust, Zelenskyy should execute commitments to shield NABU and SAPO from any political meddling. Well-defined, actionable reforms supported by all parties involved—Europe’s bodies included—would not undo the error but would indicate a renewed sense of responsibility.
Second, encouraging the public to participate constructively. Going back to decision-making that involves consultation, alongside evident legislative scrutiny and open public discussions, can start to rebuild trust. Demonstrators throughout Kyiv, Lviv, Odesa, and further afield symbolize a nationwide call to protect the advancements achieved since the Maidan revolution—a call that cannot be disregarded.
Third, balancing wartime urgency with democratic practice. In wartime, martial law and centralized authority may seem necessary, but extending those measures long-term strains legitimacy. Zelenskyy must clarify a timeline for restoring full democratic norms—especially elections—as military and security conditions evolve.
Fourth, delivering tangible governance gains. Corruption scandals, economic challenges, and administrative missteps have eroded public confidence. Zelenskyy must accelerate reforms—from anti-oligarch measures to public service efficiency—to demonstrate real progress beyond wartime symbolism.
Political analysts suggest that Zelenskyy may still retain enough support to weather the storm—especially compared against opposition figures lacking his wartime stature. Public polling indicates he remains more trusted than most rivals, though not overwhelmingly so. If elections were held now, some believe he’d perform poorly in a head-to-head against leaders like former commander-in-chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi.
Alternatively, stepping aside voluntarily after a single term could preserve his legacy as the leader who united the country during its darkest hours.
What dangers are there? If he pauses, postpones needed institutional changes, controls dissent, or indefinitely defers elections, he may risk losing support from both local civil groups and international partners. The potential for EU membership, assistance from the West, and Ukraine’s credibility depend on meeting democratic standards.
In parallel, relinquishing power prematurely or seeming divided might jeopardize the unity necessary for effective wartime cooperation. Achieving the appropriate balance between decisive leadership and responsible governance represents his most subtle obstacle.
Can Zelenskyy orchestrate a revival? The opportunity is limited yet accessible. Rebuilding of anti-corruption bodies, stabilizing the economy, and transparent leadership objectives could help him regain control of the discourse. To achieve this, he must transition from ideological populism to practical diplomacy and reform.
As Ukraine confronts an intensifying Russian offensive, weak points at home could become strategic vulnerabilities. Solid governance reinforces both internal stability and international confidence.
Whether Zelenskyy regains his stature depends on his readiness to rectify errors, allow institutional examination, and reinforce Ukraine’s democratic character. If he succeeds, he might be remembered as the leader during conflict who also respected democratic values. If unsuccessful, the past shortcomings will resurface—viewed as a continuation of Ukraine’s ongoing battle with sistema instead of a fresh start.
The next months will test whether Zelenskyy can transcend this crisis not just as a wartime leader, but as a statesman committed to democratic renewal in both war and peace.
