-Analysis-
KYIV — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has declared that 2024 will be a turning point. He said last week that his country’s fate will be decided in this, the third year of the war.
These were words directed at the international community and the need for support for Ukraine. In both the U.S. and Europe, there is a debate raging over how much military support they should provide.
[shortcode-Subscribe-to-Ukraine-daily-box]
While the Republicans in the U.S. Congress are blocking funding for Ukraine and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is arguing against providing Taurus cruise missiles, Kyiv’s forces are being pushed more and more onto the defensive. Last week, Russia seized three villages in three straight days, and its army is surging forward after capturing Avdiivka.
Although the Ukrainian army’s struggles are mainly due to the lack of material support from the West, Kyiv finds itself at a low point for another reason that’s of its making: Zelensky’s leadership.
The Ukrainian president’s approach to government leads to bad decisions being made, with serious consequences — and Zelensky appears ever more reluctant to make any changes to his method.
Just a few weeks from now, Zelensky’s electoral mandate and legitimacy come to an end. Presidential elections are due to be held in March, and recent surveys have suggested they would usher in a change of regime. Only 64% of Ukrainians have confidence in their president, down from 77% in December. At the start of the Russian invasion in February 2022, it was an incredible 90%.
Inner circle
By contrast, General Valerii Zaluzhny – Ukraine’s former military commander-in-chief, who Zelensky recently fired and is now his direct competitor – saw his already high approval ratings rise even further between December and February – from 92% to 94%.
Still, there will be no election. Martial law is currently in place in Ukraine, and even if the government wanted to change the law so that people could go to the polls, this would be impossible to organize in the Russian-occupied regions, and a logistical nightmare for soldiers and the millions of Ukrainians who have fled abroad to exercise their right to vote.
Zelensky was recently asked – not for the first time – about a possible alternative: creating a government of national unity. The question from a journalist at the press conference was drawn out and complicated, which the clearly irritated president took as an opportunity to interrupt.
“Can you name someone who would then become Prime Minister?” Zelensky asked.
“Zelensky believes in loyal colleagues and not in institutions”
Oleksiy Goncharenko cannot understand this arrogance. The 43-year-old member of parliament sits in a café near the parliament building in Kyiv. “Zelensky thinks that he has the best team around him. But that is not the case,” says Goncharenko.
As a member of the opposition party led by former President Petro Poroshenko, Goncharenko argues that Zelensky has surrounded himself with a small team of trusted confidantes who try to carry out all the work of government themselves.
“He believes in loyal colleagues and not in institutions,” says Goncharenko, arguing this was already his approach long before the war. Advisors and colleagues who contradict or criticize the president have long since been removed. Today he is surrounded by a close circle of advisors, coordinated by his Head of Office Andrii Yermak. Everything goes through him.
Yermak is the unofficial No. 2 in Kyiv. The cabinet ministers have to report to him and his ten representatives, which has essentially stripped all power from the Prime Minister, who should be in charge of the government. This means that all the decision-making has been reduced to the narrow circle of people centered around Zelensky in the President’s Office.
Thus Ukraine is facing a number of obstacles that are not directly related to the military. Because power is concentrated around the president, critics accuse the government of not dealing with economic problems, sluggish trade policy and issues around grain exports.
The inefficient approach to government can also be seen in other, very concrete ways. Since summer, the post of Ukrainian Ambassador to Britain – one of Kyiv’s key allies – has been vacant, with the appointment process stalled at the President’s Office.
Work of the Russians?
“Even the most brilliant people cannot govern a country alone,” says Goncharenko. He claims this approach to government makes the state inefficient and argues that a government of national unity would not only solve the problem of legitimacy, but also lead to better decisions being made. But Zelensky is refusing.
The consequences of Zelensky and Zaluzhnyi’s dispute are being felt by soldiers on the frontlines
Three weeks since firing Zaluzhny, the popular commander-in-chief of the armed forces, the president has not given a reason for this decision. Some point to the fact that towards the end of last year, Zaluzhny had contradicted the president’s optimistic view of the war.
The general spoke about a stalemate while Zelensky was still saying it would be possible to regain all territories occupied by Russia. Zaluzhny’s comments were blasted by those close to Zelensky, and the general was accused of doing “the work of the Russians.”
The consequences of this dispute are being felt by soldiers on the frontlines. Based on his analysis, Zaluzhny wanted to instigate a new wave of mobilization to boost dwindling numbers in the Ukrainian army. But so far Zelensky has rejected that idea, fearing that it would be unpopular politically.
Zaluzhny’s successor, General Oleksandr Syrskyi, is said to be more in step with the president — though Goncharenko notes that it’s the same problem in Zelensky’s leadership. “If the group who are making decisions is made up of people who all think the same, there is no open decision-making process in which unpopular options can also be discussed.”
Media control
The government’s control of the media, also imposed under martial law, is also having a negative impact on the country. When the Russians invaded, Zelensky ordered all TV channels to broadcast the same, state-controlled program. Online media are not subject to these restrictions, but often self-censor. The consequence is that the population generally believes the government’s optimistic view of the situation at the front.
Sasha Andibur is feeling the effect of all of this. The 29-year-old activist lives in Dnipro and provides supplies for the army. Soldiers use their smartphones to send messages requesting first aid kits, drones, tactical vests or food. Andibur then sets up crowdfunding campaigns to source the goods.
“The media don’t report how bad the situation is for the soldiers at the moment,” she complains.
As a result, many people are going on with their daily lives, unaware. “In the beginning, Ukrainians were afraid and gave everything they had to help the army,” says Andibur. “Now it takes much longer to collect enough money for new supplies.”
She says the consequences for the soldiers are dramatic. Not only materially, but also psychologically. The soldiers can’t abandon the frontline, without the relief and troop turnover that conscription would offer. “So they have to keep on fighting,” says Andibur. “It is deeply unfair.”
