KYIV — Without electricity for 12 hours a day, the fridge is no longer any use. But it’s a stable minus 10 degrees Celsius on the balcony, so I store my food there. Outside today you’ll find chicken soup, my favorite vegetable salad and even my birthday cake — all staying fresh in the biting chill. This is the latest terror the Russians have inflicted on our capital — during the cruelest winter since their all-out invasion began in February 2022. They have smashed our energy grids and central heating networks with relentless drone attacks; the frost then does the rest, caking power cables and heating pipes in thick ice that prevents repairs.  At times the temperature drops to minus 20 C and the frost permeates my apartment, its crystals covering the windows and invading the walls. Russia’s latest attack disrupted heating for 5,600 residential buildings in Kyiv, including mine.  My daily routine now includes interspersing work with a lot of walking up and down from the 14th floor of my apartment block, carrying liters of water, most importantly to my grandmother. Granny turned 80 last year. Her apartment at least has a gas stove, meaning we can pour boiling water into rubber hot water bottles and tie them to her body. “Why can’t anyone do anything to make Putin stop?” she cries, complaining that the cold gnaws into every bone of her body. The Kremlin’s attempt to freeze us to death has been declared a national emergency, and millions of Ukrainians have certainly had it harder than I. Many have been forced to move out and stay in other cities, while others practically live in malls or emergency tents where they can work and charge their phones and laptops.  FEELING FORGOTTEN Kyiv is crying out for help, but our plight rarely makes the headlines these days. All the attention now seems focused on a potential U.S. invasion of Greenland. Our president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, complains he now has to fight tooth-and-nail to secure deliveries of air-defense missiles from allies in Europe and America.  “In these times when so many lives are being lost … you still have to fight for all these missiles for various air defenses. You beg for them, squeeze them out by force,” he said.   His outrage that Ukraine’s allies are losing interest has struck a bitter chord this winter. The West’s reluctance to give us security guarantees makes us feel the Kremlin’s crimes are being normalized. Watching Greenland only makes us more afraid. Many Ukrainians no longer believe international law can do anything to rein in the world’s superpowers. Might is right, once again. We are living through what happens when an unchecked superpower is allowed to kill at will. Russia’s goal is to break our defiance, mentally and physically. Weapons designed to sink warships are being turned against our power plants, government buildings and apartments.  KEEP GOING When you’re forced to shiver in the dark for so long, deprived of sleep by nightly missile barrages, you can quickly slide into despair.   “What can I do to cheer you up, Mom?” I asked via a late-night WhatsApp message. “Do something with Putin,” she replied sarcastically, adding she can handle everything else. That means getting up and working every day, no matter how cold or miserable she feels. Veronika Melkozerova/POLITICO Whenever workers manage to restore the grid after yet another attack, the light brings with it a brief moment of elation, then a huge to-do list. We charge our gadgets, fill bottles and buckets with water, cook our food — and then put it out on our balconies.  What’s inspiring is the genuine sense that people will carry on and keep the country running — even though there’s no end in sight to this sub-zero terror. Just do your job, pay your rent, pay your taxes, keep the country afloat. That’s the mission.  So much of the city functions regardless. I can get my granny an emergency dental surgery appointment the same day. Recently, when I went for my evening Pilates — ’cause what else you gonna do in the dark and cold — I saw a woman defiantly getting a manicure in her coat and hat, from a manicurist who wore a flashlight strapped to her head. Bundled-up couriers still deliver food, but the deal is they won’t climb beyond the fifth floor, so those of us up on the 14th have to go down to meet them. Personally, I have access to any kind of food — from our iconic borscht to sushi. I can charge my gadgets and find warmth and shelter at a mall down the street. The eternally humming generators, many of them gifts from Ukrainian businesses and European allies, rekindle memories of a European unity that now seems faded.  Critically, everything comes back to the resilience of the people. Amid all the despair, you see your fellow Ukrainians — people labeled as weak, or bad managers — pressing on with their duties and chores at temperatures where hypothermia and frostbite are a real danger. That’s not to say cracks aren’t showing. The central and local governments have been passing the buck over who failed to prepare Kyiv for this apocalypse. Some streets are covered with ice, with municipal services having to fight frost and the consequences of Russian bombing at the same time. But there’s a real solidarity, a sense that all of us have to dig in — just like our army, our air defenses, our energy workers and rescue services. I find it impossible not to love our nation as it endures endless murderous onslaughts from a superpower. No matter how hard the Russians try to make our lives unbearable, we’re going to make it.

Jamie Dettmer is opinion editor and a foreign affairs columnist at POLITICO Europe. Ukraine’s poker-faced Kyrylo Budanov, who was the country’s military spy chief until Friday, had an excellent start to the new year. On Dec. 27, Budanov faked the frontline death of Denis Kapustin — the commander of a pro-Ukraine Russian militia — and with that, tricked Russian spooks into handing over half a million dollars in bounty money for the feigned assassination. Then, on Thursday, he openly celebrated the theatrical ruse by posting a video of himself smiling broadly alongside the rebel commander. “I congratulate you, as they say, on your return to life,” chimed the 39-year-old spy chief. And then the next day, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy appointed him chief of staff, as the much-awaited replacement for his longtime aide and friend Andriy Yermak. Yermak, who was virtually operating as a co-president by the end of his tenure, was forced to resign in November, following an anti-corruption raid on his apartment as part of a ballooning graft investigation into Ukraine’s energy sector and presidential insiders. A characteristically stubborn Zelenskyy had initially shunned the calls for Yermak to go, but he heeded them in the end, when even lawmakers from his own party started to rebel. Indeed, Yermak’s departure is a tectonic political shift for Ukraine. But perhaps Budanov allowed himself a private smirk after his new appointment — after all, he’d not only outsmarted the Russians again, but he’d also bested Yermak, who saw him as a rival and had tried to get him fired several times, only to emerge as the second most powerful figure in Ukraine. However, the task at hand is not easy. And in his new role, the popular wartime master spy will need every ounce of the political shrewdness he demonstrated while outfoxing Yermak. Taking over as the head of the presidential office is daunting enough at the best of times. But these are the worst of times — Ukraine is at a critical juncture in a long-running existential war, and Russian President Vladimir Putin shows no sign of wanting this to end. In fact, quite the reverse. Every time a U.S.-brokered deal appears on the table, Putin throws up yet another nyet. Meanwhile, on the battlefield, Ukraine is coming under increasing pressure, as Russia has the tactical upper hand. The battles in the east are highlighting the country’s severe manpower shortage. Ukraine’s port city Odesa is coming under ferocious drone and missile attacks as part of Russia’s bid to throttle the country’s economy by disrupting exports. And on the home front, Russian attacks on the country’s energy infrastructure are of much greater magnitude this year, and Ukraine doesn’t have the air defenses to cope — nor is it likely to get them soon. On top of all of that, Kyiv is also facing an impatient U.S. president, eager for Kyiv to cave to unacceptable Russian demands, which would leave the country vulnerable and likely in political turmoil. So, not only will Budanov have to help his boss avoid falling afoul of a mercurial Donald Trump, who seems sympathetic to Moscow and echoes Kremlin talking points all too often, he’ll also have to assist Zelenskyy in handling Ukraine’s increasingly turbulent partisan politics and bridge a widening gap between the country’s leader and its parliament. Moreover, if Zelenskyy has no choice but to accept an unfavorable peace deal, Budanov will have to help him sell it to Ukrainians. Partisan politics — long a muscular, no-holds-barred sport in Ukraine — came roaring back to life this year, sparked by an ill-judged and ultimately aborted maneuver by Zelenskyy and Yermak to try to strip two key anti-corruption agencies of their independence this summer, just as both were starting to probe presidential insiders. The snow-balling corruption scandal involving the country’s shattered energy sector has only added to public disillusionment and parliamentary frustration. And while Ukrainians will back Zelenskyy to the hilt in his diplomatic jousting with Washington, criticism of his governance has only swelled. “The biggest expectation from this power shift — beyond the ousting of Yermak’s loyalists — is a genuine transformation in governance, particularly in how the authorities engage with their own citizens. For too long, the war has served as a convenient veil for democratic backsliding. Ukrainian society has endured a profound breakdown in trust: a yawning chasm between the government and the people, fueled by human rights violations, widespread disillusionment with the war’s objectives, and rampant corruption,” said former Zelenskyy aide-turned-critic Iuliia Mendel. Andriy Yermak’s departure is a tectonic political shift for Ukraine. | Sergey Dolzhenko/EPA And lucky for Zelenskyy, aside from obvious political savvy, Budanov will take over the presidential office on Kyiv’s Bankova Street armed with the huge advantage of public popularity as well. Budanov’s esteem comes from how he’s been running Zelenskyy’s equivalent of Winston Churchill’s so-called Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare, overseeing successful, morale-boosting Ukrainian commando raids in Russian-occupied Ukraine and in Russia itself. He’s orchestrated dramatic sabotage missions, assassinations and long-range drone attacks on military and energy targets, including one that took out radar systems and a Russian An-26 military transport plane in Crimea last month. And he’s not just a desk jockey either. Budanov is very much a man of action who secretly participates in raids himself, reprising a personal frontline history that saw him fighting in the Donbas immediately after Maidan, as part of an elite commando unit of the Ukrainian military intelligence service. In 2014, he was wounded in the east. Two years later, he led a dramatic amphibious sabotage mission on Russian-occupied Crimea, which involved a nail-biting and violent retreat into Ukrainian-controlled territory. No wonder the Russians are keen to neutralize him — and they have tried. According to his aides, Russian special forces have made several botched attempts on Budanov’s life, including one in 2019, when a bomb affixed to his car exploded prematurely. But how will this buccaneering past translate into a political future? And other than popularity, what does Budanov bring to the table for Zelenskyy? A senior Ukrainian official, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly, anticipates Budanov’s presence will give the beleaguered presidency a lift: “He’s got credibility. He’s got personal stature. He’s unlikely to operate like Yermak, who was a spider casting his web far and wide. Budanov is likely to focus on national security, leaving the ministers unmolested and able to get on with their jobs and not be micromanaged by the center. So, less monopolization of power by the presidency — and that will be no bad thing,” he said. Similarly, Daniel Vajdich, a Republican foreign policy expert and president of the Yorktown Solutions consulting firm that advises Ukrainian state entities, dubbed Budanov’s appointment “a brilliant move on Zelenskyy’s part.” “I think it’s very good that someone who’s widely respected is taking charge of the president’s office in the wake of Yermak. It will be a very positive dynamic for decision-making in Kyiv,” he told POLITICO. It’s true, Yermak was a gift for MAGA’s Ukraine-bashing wing. Whereas Budanov, as a war hero, is less of an easy target, with no links to graft or any obvious self-serving politics. And if he does harbor personal political ambitions, it seems he has put those aside by taking on this new role — at least in the near term. It would be hard for him to run against Zelenskyy in any near-future elections. Plus, if things go wrong in the coming weeks and months, he risks tarnishing his own image and diminishing his electoral appeal.  In fact, there’s some surprise in Ukraine’s parliament that Budanov agreed to take the job. “It’s very confusing,” a Ukrainian lawmaker confided to POLITICO, having been granted anonymity to speak frankly. “He does have his own political ambitions. I am scratching my head to understand why he took the job — politically, it would have been safer for him to stay doing what he was doing.” Overall, the talk in parliament is that Budanov must have received political promises for the future — either over the prime ministership after elections, or Zelenskyy could have indicated he might not seek reelection and that the former spy chief could slot in as the government candidate. But other, possibly less jaundiced, lawmakers told POLITICO that Budanov’s decision to take the job could well speak less to his political calculations and more to his patriotism — country first. Maybe so, but Ukraine analyst Adrian Karatnycky suspects something more complicated is going on: Budanov’s appointment “comes at a time when the parliament is becoming more independent-minded, with lawmakers seeing that Zelenskyy’s political power is diminishing,” he said. The president’s loyalists see that too, and the appointment could be seen as “an attempt by Zelenskyy and his circle as an exercise in finding a possible substitute should they need one — and if polling indicates that Zelenskyy is unelectable.” So, part job, part audition. Either way, the big remaining question is whether Budanov will bridge the growing gap between the presidency and the parliament and civil society — something Yermak didn’t care to do. In other words, will he meet public expectations for a genuine transformation in Ukrainian governance? If he can, that would strengthen Zelenskyy — and ultimately himself.

Jamie Dettmer is opinion editor and a foreign affairs columnist at POLITICO Europe. Leaders from Ukraine, Europe and the U.S. have all hailed what they see as significant progress during this week’s peace talks to end Russia’s nearly four year-long war on Ukraine. U.S. President Donald Trump has been talking up the prospect of striking a peace deal, saying Russia and Ukraine are closer to an agreement than they’ve ever been. Russian officials have also mentioned being on “the verge of a deal,” despite flatly dismissing some of what’s been tentatively agreed on by Ukraine and its Western allies. Even Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has expressed wary optimism, though cautioning that “many difficult questions remain, not least about territories and whether Russia wants peace at all.” But besides the million-dollar question about Russia’s sincerity, there’s another problem that’s been largely overlooked: What Ukrainians themselves think, and what they’re ready to accept. Can Zelenskyy even sell a peace deal that involves Ukrainian troops withdrawing from territory they’ve contested in the Donbas Basin, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia — Ukrainian land that soldiers have bled and died for? As intense negotiations were underway in Berlin this week, the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology published a poll suggesting 75 percent of Ukrainians consider any “peace plan” involving territorial concessions by Ukraine completely unacceptable. This should give us all considerable pause — although it hasn’t with Trump and his aides, despite their persistent complaints about establishment politicians in Europe ignoring the will of their own people. The cast-iron security guarantees Zelenskyy is demanding aren’t only important to deter a repeat Russian invasion but also to help market a deal to skeptical Ukrainians. In short, if a deal involving Ukraine’s territorial withdrawal is ever struck, the message he’ll likely seek to convey is that these concessions are worth the sacrifice to gain reliable U.S.-backed security guarantees, which could prevent a subsequent return to war. So far, Zelenskyy hasn’t committed to any territorial concessions. | ember 2025 (Photo by Diego Herrera Carcedo/Anadolu via Getty Images Imperfect though it may be, Ukraine will need such a deal to stop shedding more blood — a land for lives trade-off. But that’s still going to be a very difficult sell. Though, something that might sweeten it for Ukrainians may be turning the unoccupied parts of the Donbas into a “free economic zone” rather than hand them over to Russia — an idea floated by U.S. negotiators. So far, Zelenskyy hasn’t committed to any territorial concessions, and he’s negotiated hard for the land Russia hasn’t occupied in Donetsk and Luhansk to remain under Ukrainian control. However, he hasn’t ruled out the free economic zone idea out of hand either, saying on Tuesday that “the Americans are trying to find a compromise. They are proposing a ‘free economic zone’ [in the Donbas]. And I want to stress once again: a ‘free economic zone’ does not mean under the control of the Russian Federation.” To that end, Zelenskyy’s been sticking to the position that any possible deal can’t go beyond freezing forces along current front lines. And according to the KIIS poll, most Ukrainians would accept that. Seventy-two percent of respondents said they’d support such a deal as along as there are also reliable Western security guarantees, and Ukraine and the rest of the world don’t officially recognize Russian-occupied territory in eastern Ukraine as part of Russia. Anything beyond that, any surrender of land, risks rejection and pushback from Ukrainians, despite Trump’s insistence that Kyiv will have to cede territory in line with what Russia’s demanding. But if Zelenskyy’s forced into that situation and given no alternative for fear of losing what remains of U.S. support, could he sell it to his own people? Ukrainian lawmakers from both Zelenskyy’s ruling Servant of the People party and opposition factions who POLITICO has questioned on the matter for months are adamant he won’t be able to. For one thing, they said, Ukraine’s parliament would be unlikely to endorse any such proposal. “I don’t see the parliament ever passing anything like that,” opposition lawmaker Oleksandra Ustinova said. “It would be seen as a capitulation.” And after all they’ve suffered at the hands of the Russians, Ukrainians are in no mood to do so. According to the KIIS poll, 63 percent are prepared to continue to resist Russia for as long as necessary. And while that’s a decrease from the 71 percent to 73 percent recorded from May 2022 to February 2024, it’s also a significant uptick from the 57 percent to 54 percent recorded from December 2024 to March of this year. “Despite the war fatigue, despite all the troubles we have, I’m pretty sure there aren’t many people who are ready to pay any price to stop the war,” said Yehor Cherniev, deputy chairman of the Committee on National Security, Defense and Intelligence and a member of Zelenskyy’s party. According to the KIIS poll, 63 percent are prepared to continue to resist Russia for as long as necessary. | Ukrinform/NurPhoto via Getty Images Building a political consensus around a deal involving territorial concessions and withdrawal will be difficult, agreed a former high-ranking Ukrainian official, who was granted anonymity to speak freely. “[Zelenskyy] will have to talk to people he hates among the political and military elites and who don’t trust him. He will have to get them on board to make sure they all agree on the same message and argue collectively that the deal is the best we can get.” And pulling that off would be a considerable challenge for the Ukrainian leader. During the 2019 election campaign, Zelenskyy went after his predecessor Petro Poroshenko for signing the failed Minsk agreements, which were highly unpopular and which Russia failed to implement, the official recalled. And if Zelenskyy sought to argue territorial concessions were necessary, those who oppose the surrender of land would remind him of that at every turn. The official also questioned whether Zelenskyy has the skill or temperament to build a large enough political consensus, especially in the absence of Andriy Yermak — his powerful former chief of staff who’s been embroiled in a widening corruption scandal and was forced to resign last month. For all his faults, Yermak was a political mechanic. The Ukrainian president has been high-handed with his political opponents, shutting the parliament out and ruling in a way critics argue has been semi-authoritarian. Through the war years, he’s brushed off repeated calls to include opposition politicians in a unity government and has purged more independent-minded ministers and officials. He would have to change his style of governing dramatically, explained the official. “If the way Zelenskyy governs and treats the government and the parliament doesn’t change, it would be almost impossible for him to secure the political consensus he would need.” But former Zelenskyy aide-turned-critic Iuliia Mendel isn’t so sure. “For many Ukrainians, it’s now very hard to voice a desire for peace because it can be misunderstood,” she said in an interview with Hungarian media. “Anyone who speaks of willingness to cede territories can be labeled a traitor. Anyone who calls for ending the war can face accusations of treason or collaboration with Russia — though it has nothing to do with collaboration. The truth is that we will either lose this territory now or lose far more later,” she argued. Maybe so, but others worry that any attempt to foist a land surrender on Ukraine could quickly spin out of control and spark turmoil — or worse. Many patriots who fought in the war would see it as a stab in the back, warned Ustinova. “Remember what happened in Ireland after the treaty with Britain. It ended up with a civil war.”

BERLIN — European leaders welcomed “significant progress” in talks on a potential peace deal on Monday after nearly four years of full-scale war in Ukraine, for the first time outlining how security guarantees could prevent Vladimir Putin from invading again.  Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy gave an upbeat assessment of a dramatic new offer from American officials to provide NATO-style security guarantees to Ukraine. The proposals look “pretty good,” Zelenskyy said at the end of two days of talks with Donald Trump’s negotiators and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in Berlin.  But the Ukraine president cautioned that the plans were only a “first draft,” with major questions remaining unresolved. For example, there was still no deal on what should happen to contested territory in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine, much of which is occupied by Russian troops. And there’s no indication that Russian dictator Vladimir Putin will agree to any of it. Merz, however, welcomed what he called the “remarkable” legal and “material” security guarantees that American negotiators Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, had proposed.  “For the first time since 2022, a ceasefire is conceivable,” Merz said at a press conference with Zelenskyy. “It is now entirely up to Russia whether a ceasefire can be achieved by Christmas.”  The emergence of an outline security guarantee marks a potentially critical step forward in the negotiations. Ukraine has consistently said it cannot consider any solution to the question of what happens to territories occupied by Russian troops until it receives a security package that would deter Putin from invading again.  Putin, meanwhile, has refused to countenance Ukraine joining NATO, and earlier this year Trump said American forces would not have a role in any peacekeeping mission.  However, recent days have seen a steady improvement in the mood among negotiators. “This is a truly far-reaching and substantial agreement, which we have not had before, namely that both Europe and the U.S. are jointly prepared — and President Zelenskyy has referred to Article 5 of the NATO Treaty — to give similar security guarantees to Ukraine,” Merz said. Article 5 is the cornerstone of the alliance’s collective defense: It states that an attack on one member will be treated as an attack on all. “In my view, this is a really big step forward. And, as I said, the American side has also committed itself politically and, in perspective, legally to do this,” Merz added. Zelenskyy also, for the first time, suggested a solution could be in sight. “Before we take any steps on the battlefield, we need to see very clearly what security guarantees are in place,” he said. “It is important that the U.S. is considering Article-5-like guarantees. There is progress there.” In a subsequent joint statement the leaders of Denmark, Finland, France, the U.K., Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Norway joined Merz in welcoming the “significant progress” in the talks. The statement was also signed by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and António Costa, president of the European Council, who joined the national leaders for a dinner discussion with Zelenskyy in Berlin.  Their statement also laid out more detail on what the new peace plan might include, suggesting that “the US” had “committed” alongside European leaders to guarantee the future security of Ukraine and to foster its economic recovery. This, the leaders’ statement said, would include commitments to support Ukraine’s army to maintain a “peacetime” strength of 800,000 to be able to “deter” and “defend.”  Peace would be enforced in part by a European-led “multinational force Ukraine” made up of contributions from willing nations and “supported by the U.S.” This force would secure Ukraine’s skies, support security at sea, and build up the Ukrainian armed forces, “including through operating in Ukraine.” The statement is not clear on exactly what role the U.S. would play in supporting this force.  Separately, the U.S. would be responsible for a mechanism to monitor the ceasefire and provide early warning of any future attack. There would also be a legally binding commitment to take measures to restore peace if Russia attacks again, potentially including “armed force, intelligence and logistical assistance.” Further points in the proposal include joint efforts to reconstruct Ukraine and invest in its future prosperity, and continuing Ukraine’s pathway toward joining the EU.  On the matter of ceding territory, the European leaders said it would be for Zelenskyy to decide —if necessary by consulting the Ukrainian people.  The developments represent significant movement after weeks of stalemate. But there were suggestions from the American side that their offer may be time-limited, as the White House seeks to push the warring sides toward a peace deal by Christmas.  “The basis of that agreement is basically to have really, really strong guarantees, Article 5-like,” a senior U.S. official said. “Those guarantees will not be on the table forever. Those guarantees are on the table right now if there’s a conclusion that’s reached in a good way.” Hans von der Burchard, Victor Jack, Nicholas Vinocur and Eli Stokols contributed reporting.  

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is ready to change the Ukrainian law that bans elections during wartime to demonstrate that antidemocratic accusations against him are baseless and to win clear security guarantees for Kyiv. Pressure is building on Zelenskyy from multiple sides. Kremlin chief Vladimir Putin said he will not sign any peace agreement with Zelenskyy, who he derides as an “illegitimate” president. U.S. President Donald Trump wants a swift end to Russia’s war on Ukraine, and is urging Kyiv to cede territory to Moscow to get a deal done — while criticizing Zelenskyy’s commitment to democracy.  “They’re using war not to hold an election, but, uh, I would think the Ukrainian people would … should have that choice. And maybe Zelenskyy would win. I don’t know who would win. But they haven’t had an election in a long time,” Trump said in an interview with POLITICO’s Dasha Burns for a special episode of The Conversation. “You know, they talk about a democracy, but it gets to a point where it’s not a democracy anymore.” Ukraine was scheduled to hold a presidential vote in 2024. But elections are banned during martial law and active warfare because Kyiv cannot guarantee a free, fair and safe electoral process while Russian missiles rain down, TV channels are censored by the state and more than 20 percent of the country’s territory is occupied. “The issue of elections in Ukraine is a matter for the people of Ukraine, not the people of other states, with all due respect to our partners. I am ready for the elections. I’ve heard that I’m personally holding on to the president’s seat, that I’m clinging to it, and that this is supposedly why the war is not ending — this, frankly, is a completely absurd story,” Zelenskyy told several journalists via a WhatsApp audio message late Tuesday. The powers of the Ukrainian president and parliament, as well as other state bodies, continue until 30 days after the termination of martial law — which was installed on Feb. 24, 2022, as Russian forces poured over the border — according to Ukrainian legislation. Kyiv has already studied different EU models to conduct elections after the war. Zelenskyy said he is ready to amend Ukrainian law and hold elections during wartime — in the next 60-90 days — but he wants the U.S. and Europe to guarantee the election’s security. “I am asking our parliamentarians to prepare legislative proposals enabling changes to the legal framework and to the election law during martial law, and to prepare them for me. I will be back in Ukraine tomorrow; I expect proposals from our partners; I expect proposals from our MPs — and I am ready to go to elections,” Zelenskyy said. To override the legislative block and constitutional limitations, Zelenskyy would need a ceasefire to ensure the security of voters. Putin, for his part, has repeatedly refused to agree to a ceasefire, demanding a peace agreement and territory to stop the war. “If necessary, these articles banning elections are removed by a vote in parliament, a simple majority and two readings,” said Igor Popov, senior expert at the Ukrainian Institute for the Future. Ukrainian parliamentarians would then have to organize refugee voting in Europe and at home, and decide on whether to introduce online voting given the related risk of Russian meddling. An electoral campaign also needs to last at least 90 days. One Ukrainian election expert fears that Trump’s renewed push for Zelenskyy to hold elections is an attempt to remove the legitimate leader — who won a landslide presidential victory in 2019 — who does not want to sign a deal for his country that gives away swathes of territory to Russia. “We see a certain correlation between Donald Trump and the Kremlin’s position that Ukraine needs a new leader,” Olga Ajvazovska, head of the board at the Ukrainian election watchdog OPORA, told POLITICO.   “In the opinion of these two players [U.S. and Russia], it seems that they believe that there should be a new elected president who will sign certain peace documents, and will be ready to accept demands that are unacceptable from the point of view of the constitutional framework of Ukraine, from the point of view of the principles of protecting territorial integrity, sovereignty,” Ajvazovska added. The U.S. president appears focused solely on Ukraine’s presidential election, ignoring that Kyiv also postponed parliamentary elections in 2023 and local elections in 2025. A recent 28-point peace plan, circulated by Trump’s team, demanded that Ukraine hold elections within 100 days of signing a deal — a direct intrusion into its sovereignty. “So, the emphasis is on changing Ukrainian leadership, personified in Zelenskyy. But here you have to read Ukrainian society better. While Trump is quite distant from Ukrainian realities,” Ajvazovska said. Were an election held, those who want Zelenskyy out might be disappointed. While his favorability rating dropped sharply after last month’s blockbuster energy corruption scandal, Zelenskyy is still the most popular politician in Ukraine, with around 20 percent of Ukrainians ready to vote for him again during hypothetical presidential elections, according to the latest poll published by the Info Sapiens social research agency on Tuesday. Zelenskyy’s closest competitor is former Ukrainian army commander Valerii Zaluzhnyi, who currently serves as Kyiv’s ambassador to the U.K. By intervening in domestic politics, Trump risks consolidating Ukrainians around Zelenskyy — despite the issues that voters may have with his leadership. “So, these statements, when they are made in an aggressive form, rather adjust public opinion to a position of not supporting the transfer of power in the interests or at the request of Russia through Washington,” Ajvazovska said.

Andriy Yermak’s exit as President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s all-powerful chief of staff is a tectonic shift for Ukraine that sets the stage for a fierce battle over how the country is governed. Nicknamed the “green cardinal” for wearing the military-inspired outfits his boss popularized, Yermak — a once little-known lawyer and B-movie producer — rose to wield immense influence as Zelenskyy’s top aide and was seen by many as virtually a co-president. Opposition politicians will use his firing over a $100 million corruption scandal to press home their demand for a national unity government in Kyiv, something they’ve urged ever since Russia launched its full-scale invasion nearly four years ago, and Yermak’s exit will embolden those factions. And there can be little doubt that Zelenskyy will miss the steely former attorney. Many Ukrainian commentators cast Yermak as the producer in the ruling duopoly — with the former TV comic-turned-president in the lead role.  Now Zelenskyy will be without his producer as he prepares for fraught negotiations with the U.S. over President Donald Trump’s divisive “peace plan” to end Russia’s war on Ukraine, as winter sets in and Kremlin forces try to push their advantage on the grim battlefields of the Donbas.   That said, Yermak won’t be widely mourned. His monopolization of power had drawn increasing criticism and frustration, both inside Ukraine and from Western allies. Hardly surprisingly, Ukrainian opposition politicians and former officials who had tussled with Yermak welcomed the news of his exit, saying they hoped it would mark a major change in how Zelenskyy rules and a shift away from his tightly controlled style of governing. “I didn’t believe it was possible that he would ever go,” said one former senior Ukrainian official, who asked not to be identified so as “not to be seen as dancing on Yermak’s grave.” Critics of Yermak had also pointed to Zelenskyy’s ultimately aborted moves in the summer to curb the independence of Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies — a step that initially exacerbated fears the government was tightening its grip over institutions meant to check presidential power. For opposition lawmaker Lesia Vasylenko, Yermak’s departure “shows that there’s zero tolerance for corruption and the president listens to the concerns of the people.” Others said his exit comes as a breath of fresh air.  Now Volodymyr Zelenskyy will be without his producer as he prepares for fraught negotiations with the U.S. over President Donald Trump’s divisive “peace plan” to end Russia’s war on Ukraine. | Ihor Kuznietsov/Getty Images But some opposition lawmakers questioned whether Zelenskyy will seize the moment to pursue more inclusive politics. Former Deputy Prime Minister Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze told POLITICO she remains unsure if the drama will change the way Zelenskyy governs. “Exactly that is the question. The way of governing has to go back to the constitution. Parliament has to regain its agency,” she said.  “That means the president has to agree to talk to all factions, we have to review the relationship in the parliament and form a real government of national unity, which will be accountable to the parliament, not the presidential office,” she added.  Iuliia Mendel, a Ukrainian journalist and former Zelenskyy adviser-turned-critic, told POLITICO that Yermak’s resignation was “a desperate reaction to unbearable pressure.” “Zelenskyy has no real replacement ready because he never thought things would go this far. But the heat got so intense that it boiled down to the simplest choice: him or Yermak. And Zelenskyy picked himself,” she added. But Mendel harbors some doubt that things will really change much. “Yermak might just stay the shadow puppeteer,” she warned. 

Jamie Dettmer is opinion editor and a foreign affairs columnist at POLITICO Europe. “These are the times that try men’s souls,” wrote pamphleteer Thomas Paine in the dark days of December 1776, as America’s war to free itself of the British seemed doomed. In a bid to lift flagging spirits, he continued: “Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.” That victory was sorely in doubt for much of the war, but the revolutionaries persevered, and with French assistance — which has often been downplayed since — they triumphed after eight years of brutish conflict. Ukraine’s struggle has been longer. In effect, the country has been fighting to be free of Russia since 2014, and right now, these times are, indeed, trying Ukrainian souls. As it stands, there is scant grounds for optimism that, for all its heroism, Ukraine can turn things around. The country is unlikely to emerge from its most perilous winter of the war in a stronger position, better able to withstand what’s being foisted upon it. In fact, it could be in a much weaker state — on the battlefield, the home front, and in terms of its internal politics. Indeed, as it tries to navigate its way through America’s divisive “peace plan,” this might be the best Ukraine can hope for — or at least some variation that doesn’t entail withdrawing from the territory in eastern Ukraine it has managed to retain. On the battlefield, Ukraine’s forces are currently hard pressed and numerically disadvantaged. Or, as lawmaker Mariana Bezuhla recently argued: “Ukrainian commanders simply can’t keep up” and are “being jerked around within a framework set by the enemy.” Meanwhile, on the home front, pummeling Russian drone attacks and airstrikes are degrading the country’s power system and wrecking its natural gas infrastructure, which keeps 60 percent of Ukrainians warm during the frigid winter months. The country is also running out of money. It’s hard to see a Europe mired in debt providing the $250 billion Kyiv will need in cash and arms to sustain the fight for another four years — and that’s on top of the $140 billion reparations loan that might be offered if Belgium lifts its veto on using Russia’s immobilized assets held in Brussels. If all that weren’t enough, Ukraine is being roiled by a massive corruption scandal that appears to implicate Ukrainian presidential insiders, sapping the confidence of allies and Ukrainians alike. It’s also providing those in the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump and the MAGA movement with ammunition to argue that Washington should be done with Ukraine. And now, of course, Kyiv is having to cope with a contentious U.S. effort to end Russia’s war, which has been advanced in such a chaotic diplomatic process that it wouldn’t be out of place in an episode of “The West Wing.” At times, negotiations have descended into farce, with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio forswearing the original peace plan one minute, saying it came from Russia and not a Trump administration proposal, only to swiftly backtrack. And earlier this week, a Reuters report suggested the 28-point plan was, in fact, modeled on a Russian proposal that Kremlin officials shared with their U.S. counterparts in mid-October. Meanwhile, on the home front, pummeling Russian drone attacks and airstrikes are degrading the country’s power system and wrecking its natural gas infrastructure. | Mykola Tys/EPA But for all the buffoonery — including reports that Special Envoy Steve Witkoff coached high-ranking Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov on how Russian President Vladimir Putin should speak to Trump — a tweaked 19-point version of the “peace plan” may well be the best Ukraine can realistically expect, even though it heavily favors Russia. As this column has argued before, a Ukrainian triumph was always unlikely — that is if by triumph one means the restoration of the country’s 1991 borders and NATO membership. This isn’t through any fault of Ukraine, the David in the fight against Goliath, but rather that of Kyiv’s Western allies, who were never clear-sighted or practical in their thinking, let alone ready to do what was necessary to defeat Russia’s revanchism and vanquish a Putin regime heedless of the death toll of even its own troops. Despite their high-blown rhetoric, at no stage in the conflict have Ukraine’s allies agreed on any clear war aims. Some pressed for a debate, among them former Lithuanian foreign minister Gabrielius Landsbergis, who was worried about a mismatch between Western magniloquence and what the U.S. and Europe were actually prepared to do and give. “We talk about victory, and we talk about standing with Ukraine to the very end — but let’s also talk about this,” he told POLITICO in a 2023 interview. But that debate never happened because of fears it would disunite allies. Nonetheless, Western leaders continued to characterize the war as a contest between good and evil, with huge stakes for democracy. They cast it as a struggle not only for territory but between liberal and autocratic values, and as one with global consequences. But in that case, why be restrained in what you supply? Why hold back on long-range munitions and tanks? Why delay supplying F-16s? And why prevent Ukraine from using Western-supplied long-range missiles to strike deeper into Russia? Or, as Ukraine’s former top commander Gen. Valery Zaluzhny fumed in the Washington Post: “To save my people, why do I have to ask someone for permission what to do on enemy territory?” For former Ukrainian foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba, for all its talk of standing with Ukraine for as long as it takes, the West never really grasped the war’s importance or consequences: “You cannot win a war where Russia clearly knows what its strategic goal is in every detail; [where] Ukraine knows what its strategic goal is in every detail; but [where] the West, without whom Ukraine cannot win, does not know what it is fighting for,” he told POLITICO last year. “This is the real tragedy of this war.” At times, negotiations have descended into farce, with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio forswearing the original peace plan one minute, saying it came from Russia and not a Trump administration proposal, only to swiftly backtrack. | Martial Trezzini/EPA The currently discussed 19-point plan is, of course, an improvement on the original 28-point plan — nonetheless, it is an ugly and shameful one. But this is what happens if you run down your military forces and arms production for decades, fail to draw enforceable red lines and don’t ask hard questions before making grand promises. For Ukraine, such a poor deal that leaves it with weak security guarantees, without 20 percent of its territory and prohibits it from joining NATO, will have great domestic consequences and carry the high likelihood of civil strife. It isn’t hard to see how the army and its veterans might react. Many of them will see it as a stab in the back, an enraging betrayal that needs to be punished. It will also mean rewarding Putin’s thuggishness and no real accountability for the bestial nature of his army’s atrocious behavior or the unlawful, detestable deportations from occupied parts of Ukraine to Russia. And it will, no doubt, embolden the axis of autocrats. The American Revolution had lasting global consequences — so, too, will this war.

KYIV — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Thursday resisted calls to oust his most powerful adviser, Andriy Yermak, amid a snowballing corruption scandal.  Earlier this week, members of Zelenskyy’s own party, opposition lawmakers and pro-democracy watchdogs pressured the president to fire Yermak, though anti-corruption agencies have not said the influential aide is implicated in a $100 million kickbacks plot in the Ukrainian energy sector.  Zelenskyy met with his parliamentary party late Thursday and made it clear he won’t bend, according to one attendee at the meeting.  “Regarding Yermak, the president clearly said that personnel issues in his office are his business,” a Ukrainian MP from Zelenskyy’s Servant of the People faction, granted anonymity to speak candidly, told POLITICO. The internal tug-of-war comes as Russia and some U.S. officials are once again pressuring Kyiv to agree to a so-called peace plan, which appears to favor Kremlin demands — though during a discussion with several reporters in Kyiv, American officials claimed the plan is comprehensive and does not amount to Ukraine’s capitulation to Russia.  “We are here to support the Ukrainians like we have been throughout this conflict, and we’re here to make sure that this is a good plan for the Ukrainian people,” U.S. Army spokesperson Col. Dave Buttler said. After the parliamentary meeting, Zelenskyy made a statement to the nation late Thursday. “I was at a meeting with the parliamentary majority faction, there were various issues, there were sensitive issues,” the president said, without specifying Yermak was the issue. “But the agreement, it is obvious — everyone must work for Ukraine, and it will be so. The wartime parliament must be functioning. And I thank everyone who helps ensure this. And there will be decisions that will help with this,” Zelenskyy added. This story is being updated.

Adrian Karatnycky is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and the author of “Battleground Ukraine: From Independence to the War with Russia.” The vast corruption scandal unfolding in Ukraine has deeply damaged the country’s image. It has also severely eroded trust in President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, turning him into a lame duck at home. Involving a plot to extort around $100 million from Ukraine’s energy sector, the scandal has so far engulfed Zelenskyy’s Justice Minister German Galushchenko, Energy Minister Svitlana Hrynchuk, as well as officials from the country’s atomic energy agency and senior officials from the State Bureau of Investigation. Most damaging to Zelenskyy, however, is that the allegations extend to his most trusted allies: Former business partner Tymur Mindich is said to be at the center of the schemes. And the highly powerful yet unpopular Chief of Staff Andriy Yermak is being accused by adversaries of subverting and impeding the work of the country’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor, whose offices uncovered the widespread conspiracy — now called “Mindichgate.” Domestically, these revelations are already causing a seismic shift in Zelenskyy’s political fortunes, contributing to widespread anger. And while there’s no evidence of personal corruption by the president, his style of rule and reliance on governing with the help of a group of pals and cronies has worn thin. Significantly, Zelenskyy came to power on a wave of high-minded rhetoric promising to root out corruption and replace generations of dishonest officials with new faces of integrity. But his inflated assurances have now been punctured by the misrule that’s being revealed each day in plot twists as riveting as a Netflix crime series. So, what, if anything, can he do to restore confidence? In office for nearly six-and-a-half years now, Zelenskyy was long riding high in the polls, bolstered by his courage and inspirational leadership in the face of Russia’s brutal war. In recent months, however, the public has started to look for fresh leaders amid growing discontent over his highly centralized, insular and — at times — authoritarian rule. In October, well before the current scandal unfolded, polls showed only one in four Ukrainians wanted Zelenskyy to run for office again once the war ended. And were he to run, they showed him being handily defeated by Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, the popular former commander of Ukraine’s armed forces whom Zelenskyy dismissed. According to opposition Deputy Yaroslav Zheleznyak, who played a crucial role in exposing the corruption scandal, polls as yet unpublished now show Zelenskyy losing a further 40 percent of his support, suggesting his electoral base now stands at around 25 percent, making him a lame-duck president. So low is Zelenskyy’s support and so damaging the effect of the corruption crisis that, speaking anonymously, individuals who have worked closely with the president and his inner circle have now hinted he may not seek a second term once circumstances permit a vote. It’s a possibility that’s bolstered by numerous reports stating Ukraine’s first lady Olena Zelenska has long felt the president shouldn’t seek reelection given the extension of his current term and the toll his absence has taken on his family. Furthermore, the crisis has not only reduced Zelenskyy’s chances of reelection, it has also opened the field to new potential challengers. But while public discontent with Zelenskyy is at a wartime peak, the Ukrainian public understands it would be perilous to engage in destabilizing mass protest amid modest Russian territorial advances — a responsible civic position that was confirmed to me by Serhiy Sternenko, a firebrand civic activist with millions of followers on social media. And though Zelenskyy’s position as president remains secure given the wartime setting, as a lame-duck president his main aim must be to restore public confidence in the government, ensure the functioning of an effective parliament, and demonstrate to the international community that Ukraine is being governed both effectively and transparently. To achieve these goals, Zelenskyy would be well advised to begin wide-ranging consultations with civic leaders, anti-corruption experts and the patriotic opposition, aiming to create a technocratic government of trusted officials. He also needs to dismantle his highly centralized presidential rule by limiting his own powers to the areas of defense, national security and foreign policy, and by drastically reducing the powers of his team of presidential aides. This could be done by transferring their domestic and economic policy responsibilities to a restructured government and parliament instead. The fact is, if Zelenskyy doesn’t act, others may do it for him. For years, the Ukrainian leader’s power has derived from his control of a parliamentary majority through his Servant of the People party, but fissures are now appearing within that base. A report from investigative news site Ukrainska Pravda indicates that the head of the party’s parliamentary faction, David Arakhamia, has now joined calls for Zelenskyy to reform the presidential office and replace Yermak. It also reports that Danylo Hetmantsev, a powerful legislator heading the parliament’s finance committee, is planning to create a new party. And on Wednesday, lawmaker Mykyta Poturayev announced his own initiative to create a new parliamentary majority, which would include members of the patriotic opposition. To respond to this pressure and restore confidence, Zelenskyy must try to assemble a strong team that holds the public’s trust, as well as that of Ukraine’s allies. Recruiting such competent officials in the current chaos won’t be easy, but there is a pool of them out there — including First Deputy Prime Minister Mykhailo Fedorov, former Ambassador to the U.S. and Finance Minister Oksana Markarova, and former Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, who was removed from office for unclear reasons. In short, while the damage done to Zelenskyy is likely irreversible, the president has a chance to use the current crisis to set Ukraine on a proper path of greater transparency, and to compensate for diminished support by engaging with and transferring significant authority to a team that enjoys public confidence. Following such a set of steps — coupled with the vigorous and unimpeded prosecution of those involved in the web of corruption that has been exposed — would ensure morale in Ukraine remains strong. It would strengthen the country’s hand amid reports that the U.S. administration is pressuring Kyiv to make major concessions to Russia. Above all, it would ensure a firm basis for Ukraine to continue its courageous and effective resistance in this existential war.

KYIV — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is under fierce pressure to fire his powerful top aide Andriy Yermak amid a corruption scandal that risks spiraling into the country’s biggest domestic political crisis since Russia’s full-scale invasion. The pressure to ditch Yermak — described to POLITICO by four senior Ukrainian officials involved in political discussions in Kyiv — poses a problem for Zelenskyy because it comes partly from within the ranks of his own Servant of the People party. The crisis looks set to come to a head on Thursday, when Zelenskyy will hold crunch meetings with government officials and members of parliament. Yermak runs the presidential office and is a sharp-elbowed political operator who has been crucial in steering Zelenskyy’s rule since he took power in 2019. Some see him as almost a co-president. The attacks on such a crucial ally could hardly come at a more sensitive moment for Zelenskyy. Kyiv faces a massive budget shortfall, and the president must convince his Western allies that Ukraine is a safe place to send billions of euros in vital funding. Two people directly involved in the political discussions said Zelenskyy would fight back and defend Yermak from the mounting criticism later this week. While there have been attempts to link Yermak directly to the snowballing corruption scandal, the campaign against him is also a sign of broader frustration — within both the opposition and Zelenskyy’s party — over Yermak’s domineering presence in the presidential office. An earlier drive by that office to strip Ukraine’s anti-corruption bureau of its independence triggered public fury in July. ENERGY SCANDAL The immediate flashpoint rocking Ukrainian politics — and fueling the attack against Yermak — is a corruption scandal in the country’s shattered energy sector. The controversy erupted last week after current and former officials were officially charged with manipulating contracts at Energoatom, the state nuclear energy company, to extract kickbacks. Government investigators say the network laundered roughly $100 million through a secret Kyiv-based office. Most have publicly denied the accusations. Yermak’s political opponents are trying to link him directly to the scandal — saying either he or one of his lieutenants is the anonymous individual referred to as Ali Baba in wiretaps related to the energy case. The NABU anti-corruption bureau, however, says it can “neither confirm nor deny” that allegation, and Yermak himself protests his innocence. “People mention me, and sometimes, absolutely without any evidence, they try to accuse me of things I don’t even know about,” he told POLITICO’s sister publication Welt in the Axel Springer Group last week, when asked directly whether he was involved. The political pitfall for Yermak — amid such a high-profile scandal — is that his adversaries accuse him of having played a lead role in seeking to strip NABU of its independence just as it was looking into the Energoatom case. “He’s the one who decided to pick a fight with NABU,” a senior Ukrainian adviser told POLITICO, asking not to be identified to be able to speak frankly. “Had he not done that, basically, they think this scandal would have just been, you know, swept under the rug or it would have come out later in a year or so,” the adviser added. “His enemies see this as an opportunity to try to get rid of him.” That view was echoed by other insiders. “Of course, Yermak’s opponents and also people that he has stripped of influence and schemes, are asking the president to fire him,” a senior Ukrainian official told POLITICO on condition of anonymity to speak candidly. DAMAGE REPAIR Zelenskyy previously attempted to repair the damage from the energy scandal by imposing sanctions on his former business partner Tymur Mindich. He also launched a reshuffle and an audit at Energoatom and other state energy companies. Mindich has fled to Israel and could not be contacted for comment. Ukrainian watchdogs and MPs, however — especially from the opposition but also from the ruling Servant of the People party — claimed he had not done enough and demanded a more thorough clean-up. All the Ukrainian officials who spoke to POLITICO expected Zelenskyy would have to address the matter directly on Thursday. Former President Petro Poroshenko, who lost elections to Zelenskyy in 2019 after a similar corruption scandal involving his own close allies, said his faction had started collecting signatures to oust the entire government, citing the need to restore public trust and reassure Kyiv’s war allies. “Ukraine is experiencing the greatest threat to its existence, starting from February 24, 2022. Now it is necessary to resolve the issue of the Ukrainian people’s trust in the government, in the Verkhovna Rada [parliament]. The issue is of partners’ trust in the state of Ukraine,” Poroshenko said in a Facebook post on Tuesday. An MP confirmed to POLITICO that dissent was also present in the president’s Servant of the People faction in the Ukrainian parliament, particularly following NABU’s release of audio tapes on which suspects in the case allegedly discuss corruption schemes. “The reason is the tapes from NABU. Everyone understands the tapes are leading to him [Yermak], and that he was behind the July crisis [regarding NABU’s independence]. If this becomes publicly known, it will undermine all [members of the] Servants [party],” said the MP, who was also granted anonymity.  “There’s a high probability he will indeed resign, but we will believe it when we see it,” the MP added. POLITICO sought comment from Yermak, but he is currently traveling in Western Europe with Zelenskyy and was not able to respond immediately. Zelenskyy is expected to address the matter when he returns. Two of the Ukrainian officials said Zelenskyy had told them he would not give in to the pressure and would keep Yermak, but that he would make some government changes, possibly bringing in some opposition figures to appease critics. “This week, there will be relevant conversations with government officials and a meeting with the leadership of the parliament and MPs of the Servant of the People faction. I am preparing several necessary legislative initiatives and principled quick decisions that our state needs,” Zelenskyy said on Tuesday, while providing no further details.  Yaroslav Zheleznyak, an outspoken critic of Zelenskyy and an opposition MP from the Holos party, told POLITICO that some MPs from the Servant of the People party were in revolt and suspected a link between Yermak and the corruption schemes. But NABU head Semen Kryvonos has publicly refused to either “confirm or deny” that Yermak features in the wiretaps from the energy sector scandal.   “Of course, they would not publicly tell you details of an ongoing investigation. Lawmakers assume that without Yermak, this all would not have happened,” Zheleznyak said. Ibrahim Naber of Welt contributed reporting.