РУССКИЙ
9:04 16.11.2024 •
Photo: AP
The interregnum period in the United States may bring turmoil to Ukraine. Not only is the time of lucrative tours of Europe and North America for the illegitimate Zelensky apparently over, save for just few and far between trips, but no one has freed him from his obligation to fight on. Moreover, he will soon have to ensure a legitimate power change through elections.
This comes in a report just released by Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service: “The Press Bureau of the Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation reports that, according to data received by the SVR, the US State Department continues to work out options for changing Ukraine’s current leadership. As one of the “legitimate” ways to eliminate the “overly presumptuous” V. Zelensky, Washington is considering holding presidential and parliamentary elections next year amid the continued hostilities with Russia. Therefore, the leadership of the US State Department has decided to lay the groundwork for running an election campaign in Ukraine. At the initial stage, it is proposed to stimulate the Ukrainian civil society structures under their control to come forward with a corresponding initiative through American "democratization" funds and "think tanks." (…) Candidates would be nominated in coordination with the State Department, and US NGOs would select local public organizations to monitor the elections. Also, encouraged by the United States, Western-sponsored Ukrainian ‘civil activists’ have launched discussions on creating a new pro-American party in the country. According to the US State Department’s plan, such a political force should enter the Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian parliament) to play a key role in restraining any Ukrainian leader. Such activity by Washington clearly demonstrates that the mantra "not a word about Ukraine without Ukraine" regularly repeated by official US representatives is just a beautiful "wrapper." In fact, the fate of Ukraine and its puppet leaders will continue to be decided in high places in Washington." [i]
There is other evidence of this process. What is this? A real preparation for replacing Mr. Illegitimacy – Zelensky? The saddest thing for Zelensky is that the team of US President-elect Donald Trump might want to work to restore some legitimacy to Ukrainian power and try to negotiate some kind of truce, while continuing to support Kyiv's military potential.
The Western media is already envisioning a presidential election campaign in Ukraine. The Economist writes, “If elections were held tomorrow, Mr. Zelensky would struggle to repeat the success of the landslide win he secured in 2019. Nearly three years into the Russian invasion, he is no longer seen as the undisputed war leader he once was. [ii] It is worth reminding foreign journalists that the “war leader” Zelensky went to the elections as the “president of peace,” and this will factor in big in his upcoming defeat, if elections actually happen.
The Economist also learned that Zelensky has slim chances of beating Valeriy Zaluzhny, the former commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and now ambassador to the UK: “Internal polling seen by The Economist suggests Zelensky would fare badly in a run-off against Valery Zaluzhny, another war hero.” Whenever elections are held in Ukraine, Zelensky could now be defeated not only by Zaluzhny, but also by another “Zaluzhny” chosen by the West. An unnamed former colleague of the president says his best move might be to step aside regardless, and keep to his original promise only to serve one term. “Zelensky has only one way to get out with an intact reputation,” this source said. “The alternative is to risk being associated with a military collapse or an incomplete peace,” he added.
In fact, Zelensky went down in history as the man who plunged Ukraine into a war that destroyed the state - territorially, economically, mentally and politically. As the man whose decisions and actions forced hundreds of thousands of people to leave the country and led to the death of hundreds of thousands of soldiers who were forcibly mobilized during the fighting. As the man during whose watch the Nazification of Ukraine went through the roof. Getting back to the elections, I am sure that Trump's return to power gives Zelensky a chance to fulfill his current latent dream of losing the presidential election. At the same time, questions of a political technology and legal nature arise – how to hold elections in Ukraine during an ongoing military conflict? Would such elections be legitimate from a political standpoint? I think that Washington just couldn’t care less about this. Military actions and migration, internal and external, problems with the formation of election commissions and much more – all this is not an obstacle to holding elections. Their main lobbyist, Washington, will not bother about the legitimacy of the elections, because the technology has already been worked out – all elections in Ukraine since 2014 have been held in conditions of military conflict and in conditions of territorial losses.
The election scenario is also clear. Two key electoral technologies can be played out:
The Moldovan model – diaspora voting in the host countries.
Dead souls – deceased, missing Ukrainians, who were not found at their place of registration, but voted nonetheless.
These technologies will ensure victory for the right candidate. They could be used only by those in power in Ukraine, as well as the party that controls the Ukrainian government and the public sector. This comes down to controlling election commissions at all levels, Ukrainian embassies and consulates abroad, where the diaspora vote will be organized, and the armed forces, which will organize the military vote.
The very fact of announcing the elections, not losing the race, will be the beginning of the end of Zelensky's regime. The moment such a command is given by Washington, the regime will begin to crumble. There will be real candidates for the post of president and other positions, spoiler candidates, “speculator” candidates (political traders for resources and positions), there will be defectors and a flow of compromising information to boot.
The above scenarios are a matter of the near future though. For now, Zelensky sticks to the old format: war and weapons. According to The Financial Times, Zelensky’s “victory plan” was drawn up with Trump’s rise to power in mind, and was also advised by high-ranking Republicans: “The first proposal is to replace some of the US troops in Europe with Ukrainian units once the conflict is over. The second involves sharing the country’s natural resources with Western partners. Trump showed ‘interest’ in these two points.”[iii] According to the FT, “Ukraine's European and US allies, including senior Republicans, have offered advice on how to better shape the proposals to ensure Trump works closely with Kyiv rather than cutting critical aid to the country.”
This information looks plausible because it fits Trump’s political profile: a business approach (an interest in resources), the withdrawal of some US troops from Europe (an intention to scale down the US military presence abroad, to transfer the Ukrainian crisis to Europe). They are also trying to play on Trump’s Sinophobia: “Separately, Ukrainian business leaders and the country’s government are negotiating giving Trump the power to ‘screen investments,’ which would effectively allow him to choose who these companies can do business with.”
One of the newspaper’s sources described the idea as ‘anyone but China,’ which he believes might particularly appeal to Trump. Thus, Ukrainian industries, such as telecoms companies that have traditionally relied on Beijing, could switch to US suppliers, the FT writes. If true, this is an “invitation to dance” for Elon Musk, who already has ties to telecommunications in Ukraine, and was also appointed by Trump, along with Vivek Ramaswamy, to head the new US Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to become auditors of the entire US federal government.
What can and will Zelensky do, what are his possible options for action to achieve the most beneficial interaction with the Trump administration? These are the following options:
- "To rock the boat" emotionally - another provocation with innocent victims (Bucha-2) in order to tie Trump to Ukraine and himself. Zelensky may try to create a situation where the elected US president will be forced to support Ukraine because of the “Russians’ barbarity.” An extremely risky option for the illegitimate Zelensky, since Trump does not tolerate or forgive blackmail, especially when it looks like an attempt to disrupt or change his plans.
- Find lobbyists for his interests in the US. Such attempts to work with Trump's entourage have already been made before. For example, Viktor Pinchuk has provided such services to Ukrainian presidents, starting with his father-in-law, Leonid Kuchma. He put Mike Pompeo, who served as Secretary of State during Trump's first term, on the board of directors of Ukraine’s largest mobile operator, Kyivstar.[iv] However, it looks like Trump has written off Pompeo, and now it is time to start all over again. The story about "the points of Zelensky's plan that Trump liked" is exactly about this when it comes to offering the Americans powers to "check investments."
Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs magazine, thus assesses Trump's reaction to these offers: "The preponderance of domestic tasks over external ones, (always embraced by Trump's supporters, and now by a significant part of the Republican Party), means pickiness in the choice of international themes. Preserving the moral and political hegemony of the United States is not an end in itself, but rather an instrument. In such a system of coordinates, the Ukrainian project loses the overarching significance that it has in the eyes of the adherents of the liberal order, and becomes a card in a larger game. Another trait of Trump’s character is that even his ill-wishers generally admit that he does not consider war as an acceptable instrument. Tough bargaining, muscle flexing, forceful pressure, (Trump's usual modus operandi in business) - yes. But not a destructive armed conflict, because it is irrational. Therefore, Trump may be quite sincere when he talks about the need to stop the bloodshed in Ukraine and Gaza.”[v]
The legitimacy of power in Kyiv in exchange for a ceasefire with the prospect of negotiations is a likely scenario for the Trump administration if it prioritizes a settlement in the Middle East and a confrontation with China over Ukraine. Here it is worth quoting Fyodor Lukyanov again: “It is in Russia’s interests to remain calm and not react to the hype. (…) Everyone will now be saying that a window of opportunity has opened for a short time, and that this chance can’t be missed. In crises like the Ukrainian one there are no “short” windows that you can slip through. This is either a gateway to new stable relations, which can’t be opened like a snap, or a portal to a fight, even more brutal, since it comes after yet another disappointment.”
The views of the author are his own and may not reflect the position of the Editorial Board.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[i] http://www.svr.gov.ru/smi/2024/11/ssha-gotovyatsya-k-provedeniyu-vyborov-na-ukraine.htm
[ii] https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/11/12/volodymyr-zelensky-faces-a-power-struggle-in-2025
[iii] https://www.rbc.ru/politics/12/11/2024/6732f1689a79471febc3ab79?from=newsfeed
[iv] https://lenta.ru/news/2023/11/14/pompeo-voydet-v-sovet-direktorov-odnogo-iz-mobilnyh-operatorov-ukrainy/
[v] https://globalaffairs.ru/articles/ot-memov-k-oknam-lukyanov/
read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs
