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 path has been shaped by two separate political trajectories. Elected with pledges to eliminate corruption and overhaul the entrenched political elite, he encountered early setbacks as progress slowed. His approval ratings fell significantly during 2021 due to halted reforms and an ambiguous leadership course. Detractors contended he had promised more than he could achieve.
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.
Yet as wartime unity solidified his position, structural weaknesses resurfaced beneath the veneer of solidarity. Recently, legislation placing Ukraine’s two main anti-corruption bodies under executive control triggered the largest domestic backlash since the war’s start. Tens of thousands protested nationwide, while EU officials, Western allies, and even Ukrainian service members voiced alarm.
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 the immediate needs of wartime with democratic principles. In periods of conflict, implementing martial law and centralized control might appear essential, yet sustaining such measures over an extended duration challenges their legitimacy. Zelenskyy needs to outline a schedule for reestablishing complete democratic standards—particularly elections—as the military and security landscape develops.
Fourth, achieving real improvements in governance. Scandals of corruption, economic difficulties, and administrative errors have undermined public trust. Zelenskyy needs to advance reforms—ranging from actions against oligarchs to enhancing public service efficiency—to show genuine progress beyond wartime symbolism.
Political experts propose that Zelenskyy might still have sufficient backing to withstand challenges, particularly when compared to opposition leaders who do not have his wartime prominence. Surveys show that he is more trusted than many competitors, although not by a wide margin. If elections were conducted at present, it is speculated that he might not fare well in a direct contest against figures such as the 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.
At the same time, surrendering authority too quickly or appearing fractured could destabilize wartime coordination. Striking the right balance between strong leadership and accountable rule is his most delicate challenge.
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 faces an escalating assault by Russia, domestic weaknesses might turn into crucial vulnerabilities. Strong governance bolsters both internal stability and confidence abroad.
Whether Zelenskyy recovers hinges on his willingness to correct missteps, open institutions to scrutiny, and reaffirm Ukraine’s democratic identity. If successful, he may retain his place as the wartime figurehead who also honored democratic principles. If he fails, the legacy returns to prewar failings—seen as another chapter in Ukraine’s long struggle with sistema rather than a new beginning.
In the upcoming months, Zelenskyy will be challenged to prove himself not only as a leader during conflict, but also as a statesman dedicated to the revitalization of democracy in times of war and peace.
