Read More
When US President Donald Trump called for his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, to be replaced (Oct 10), Zelensky's backers were shocked. Piqued by Zelensky's criticism of his outreach to Moscow, Trump said, "It's time for Ukraine to get a new president." However, Zelensky is determined to hang on, calling a fresh election “a huge risk."
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
He was elected president on May 20, 2019, for a five-year term. He has refused to hold a new election because of Ukraine's ongoing conflict with Russia. Although he has now served over seven years, there is currently no prospect of a presidential election.
His former defense minister, Mykhailo Fedorov, tipped as a future president, has led the demands for a new election. He called in August for a "legal, safe and realistic mechanism that will allow Ukraine to restore a full democratic process even amidst a prolonged war".
Fedorov also alleged that Ukraine was facing "a crisis of confidence," a reference to high-level corruption (not involving Zelensky personally). In November, for example, a bribery scandal forced out both the justice and energy ministers, followed by Zelensky's chief of staff, Andriy Yermak. On August 5, the former deputy prime minister, Olha Stefanishyna, was charged with illicit enrichment and filing false asset declarations. On September 6, even the chief prosecutor, Ruslan Kravchenko, resigned over corruption allegations related to illegal call centers in Ukraine.
According to The New York Times (Sept 6), systemic corruption is even affecting the armed forces. It claimed that Ukraine lost roughly US$1.2 billion in 2024 to fraud, waste and mismanagement in military contracting. If true, Ukraine's foreign backers (including the UK, which gives Ukraine almost US$4 billion a year) may be less than ecstatic.
It therefore came as no surprise that Fedorov told the BBC (August 23) that Zelensky should be asked questions about corruption in his government. However, so long as he retains the presidency, Zelensky is unlikely to oblige.
Be that as it may, Trump said Zelensky could have settled Ukraine's conflict with Russia "many, many times," and he should know. Although he has repeatedly sought to broker a deal between the two sides, Zelensky has refused to compromise - and it is not hard to see why.
After Trump famously berated Zelensky in the Oval Office at the outset of his presidency in 2025, other NATO allies rallied round. Led by former British prime minister Sir Keir Starmer, and backed primarily by France and Germany, they formed the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" (the coalition). Its purpose was to persuade Zelensky not to negotiate an end to the conflict, but, with their support, to keep it going indefinitely.
Zelensky, a grandstander par excellence, was happy to oblige. His Russophobia has made him a hero to the European Union, and most NATO leaders want to be seen shaking his hand. He is welcomed at global summits whose doors would be shut if his country were at peace.
The coalition saw Ukraine from the outset as a useful proxy. It wanted to strike Russia as hard as possible, but without getting directly involved. The United Kingdom, for example, has supplied Storm Shadow missiles that Ukraine has unleashed on Russia, causing immense damage. It has also agreed to supply Ukraine with 150,000 drones by the end of 2026 (together with air defense systems and radar equipment), and the destruction these will wreak on Russia can only be imagined.
It has also emerged that British military personnel are covertly serving in Ukraine. In December, for example, British paratrooper George Hooley was killed while watching Ukrainian forces testing defensive capabilities. Last month, Major Paul Wilks, an intelligence officer, was confirmed to have been killed in a traffic accident (away from the front line). Additionally, approximately 50 British "volunteers" have been confirmed dead since the conflict began in February 2022. Although the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 makes UK nationals prosecutable for enlisting in the military of a foreign state at war with a state at peace with Britain, no prosecutions have been brought against any British mercenaries. This suggests connivance at the highest levels.
Given the UK's manifest complicity in the conflict, its incessant complaints about "Russian threats" to its homeland are hard to take seriously. Indeed, ever since the Cold War ended, Russia has been a convenient whipping horse.
On Oct 11, for example, the British prime minister, Andy Burnham, announced there was "clear" evidence that Russia had interfered in the Brexit referendum in 2016 (without specifying what it was). This prompted the Conservative Party's foreign affairs spokesman, Weny Morton, to emphasize that "the result of the referendum is legitimate and its authenticity should not be questioned". By invoking Russia, Burnham must have imagined it would be easier for him to implement his plan to take the UK back into the European Union. This, however, treats the British people, who were determined to leave the EU, as fools.
Meanwhile, France and Germany have been similarly hypocritical. Although both maintain diplomatic relations with Moscow, each has sought to use Ukraine to undermine Russia. Paris provides sophisticated weapons systems to Kyiv, including Dassault Rafale fighter jets, SCALP cruise missiles, AASM Hammer bombs and Caesar artillery. Not to be outdone, Germany announced (Oct 4) a US$1.46 billion military aid package for Ukraine.
When, therefore, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz waxed lyrical recently about the "hybrid threats" posed to their countries by Moscow, their huge investment in Ukraine's war machine inevitably sprang to mind.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO sought to enlarge itself at Russia's expense. Moscow’s concerns over encirclement were disregarded, and it felt increasingly threatened. Despite this, NATO absorbed Russia's former Warsaw Pact partners and recruited the Baltic states.
After the present conflict erupted over a territorial dispute and Kyiv's controversial treatment of the Russian-speaking population in the Donbas region, NATO took advantage of the situation to enlist Finland and Sweden. The coalition now sees positive advantages for NATO in prolonging the conflict - the greatest being the long-term weakening of Russia. However, Trump, the realist and deal maker, knows exactly what is afoot and remains committed to achieving a peaceful outcome, with or without Zelensky.
It is little wonder that the coalition wants to egg Zelensky on, and he is only too happy to oblige. However, as the conflict approaches its fifth anniversary, the deadlock must be broken. Zelensky clearly cannot negotiate a peace settlement, not least because he has forfeited any credibility. Both Washington and Moscow distrust him, a fatal handicap at a critical time. If, as Trump believes, a change of leadership is required in Kyiv before any real progress can be made, the sooner it happens, the better.
The author is a senior counsel and law professor, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong SAR.
