Trump making Putin happy (part 1): U.S. pressing for elections in Ukraine in 2025.

Putin has long talked about Zelensky's "lack of legitimacy" - in order to sow instability in Ukraine and gain the upper hand in negotiations. The new U.S. administration seems to agree.

BY MICHAEL ANDERSEN

The U.S. and Russia agree. About what Ukraine should do.

Both the U.S. and Russia are now pushing Ukraine to hold elections as soon as possible. Seemingly even making it a condition for a final peace treaty. Putin’s spokesperson Dmitry Peskov has repeatedly told reporters that “President Zelensky’s term of office has ended” and that the “legitimization of Ukraine’s leadership would have to be a necessary part of any peace process.”

For more than a year, the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin has been calling Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “illegitimate” and stressed that he, Putin, does not recognize him as president of Ukraine; because the presidential elections in Ukraine - which according to the constitution were supposed to have taken place in the Spring of 2024 - were postponed indefinitely. Putin, of course, doesn’t mention that the elections were postponed only after he and the Russian army invaded Ukraine.

Recently the situation changed radically when President Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, Keith Kellogg (seen above), also started pushing for elections in Ukraine, potentially before the end of this year. And thereby, de facto, recognizing that Putin is right about Zelensky’s lack of legitimacy.

Keith Kellogg said in an interview with Reuters that presidential elections “need to be done.” Kellogg expresses some understanding that elections maybe can’t take place “right now”, but then he went on to say that “most democratic nations have elections in their time of war. I think it is important they [the Ukrainians] do so… I think it is good for democracy. That's the beauty of a solid democracy, you have more than one person potentially running.”

Both Kellogg and his boss have expressed expectations that the war will be over before the end of 2025. And reportedly Kellogg’s strategy "involves Ukraine heading to the polls - in 2025 - following an initial truce with Russia, before the eventual winner negotiates a longer-term peace deal with Moscow.”

Hold on there a second, Mr Kellogg. Let’s get the situation straight, because this is all getting more than a bit bizarre:

Bizarre fact no 1: that a dictator who himself has been in power since 1999 is upset that a democratically-elected president - whose country said dictator invaded, killing hundreds of thousands of people and forcing 10 million to flee their homes - has postponed elections till the war is over.

Bizarre fact no 2: that the U.S. President now accepts the dictator’s line of arguing, despite the fact that Putin’s agenda has nothing to with democracy in Ukraine and everything to do with getting to keep as much as possible of Ukraine.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has made it very clear that he disagrees; he insists that presidential and parliamentary elections can take place only after the war has ended and martial law has been lifted.

Zelensky obviously has his own agenda here - he would like to get reelected. But from a neutral point of view, it is very difficult to disagree with him when he points out that Putin’s ‘illegitimacy’ accusation is a pathetically transparent effort to undermine Ukraine’s leadership and thus the country’s defense.

I say “pathetically transparent” - but obviously the new U.S. president sees it differently.

In an interview over the weekend, the Ukrainian leader explained how holding elections now would be outright dangerous for Ukraine:

“[In order to hold elections] We must either end martial law or suspend it. If we suspend martial law, we will lose the army…. without martial law, Ukraine’s military structure would be weakened, as soldiers would have the legal right to return home, and as a result combat readiness would decline. And the Russians will be pleased.”

Contrary to the U.S., the EU is sticking with Zelensky. Ursula von der Leyen: “What elections is concerned in Ukraine. This is a domestic matter of Ukraine, so not for me to comment.”

Importantly, according to a number of polls from 2024, amongst the Ukrainian people themselves there is little appetite for holding presidential elections while the war is still going on. A poll by the International Republican Institute (IRI) from Winter 2024 concludes that 60% of Ukrainians oppose elections before peace, while other polls (by Kyiv International Institute of Sociology) say that 80 or even 85% of Ukrainians oppose such elections.

After all, democracy means ‘rule by the people’ - so somehow it seems fair that the Ukrainians should have a say in this matter, no? Maybe more than the dictator who is trying to exterminate them or a U.S. president who is exhibiting serious trouble trying to understand the very concept of democracy and respect for the constitution?

In this, the Ukrainians are in fact demonstrating a remarkable political maturity: Only 24% of the population ‘strongly support’ President Zelensky (halved from one year earlier), and as few as 16% would vote for him today - but, as indicated above, no less than 60-85% still want Zelensky to stay in power till the war is over. Meaning that the average Ukrainian is perfectly capable of distinguishing between their own political wishes and the overall stability of the country, as they see it.

Even Ukrainians who do not plan to vote for Zelensky nevertheless understand that his persona and bravery has been pivotal for the cohesion and survival of Ukraine, and that the ex-comedian dressed in his eternal army fatigues has been very efficient in keeping the international limelight on Ukraine.

Who can forget Zelensky’s Churchill-like answer to the U.S. offer of extracting him to safety during the first days of the invasion when it looked like Kyiv was about to fall to the Russians - “I need ammo not a ride”? And ever since that Western leaders have made pilgrimages to Kyiv; yes sure, to show their support for Ukraine but also, let’s be honest, because a photo op with Zelensky scores you political capital at home.

(Headline in Politico beginning of February)

The downsides for Ukraine of being forced to hold elections are many. Which is, of course, exactly why the Kremlin is playing that card. This is typical Putin, typical KGB-spoiler tactics. Why the Trump administration is playing the same game is more difficult to fathom, not to say impossible.

I have consulted a range of experts and analysts, in person and reading their analyses, and all agree that what Trump is suggesting would be politically disastrous for Ukraine.

This is a country and population in the middle of the most traumatic period in its history with 10 million people having been forced to flee their homes, 20% of their country occupied and hundred of thousands of people killed. Imagine a political campaign and elections under such circumstances. Forced upon them by their invading neighbor and the country the Ukrainians thought was their main ally.

This is what would happen:

1) Just simply by raising the ‘illegitimacy’ question, the U.S. is undermining Zelensky’s authority. Logically. And Putin is laughing out loud.

2) The logistical and security challenges of holding elections right now would be enormous (and expensive). In a situation where Russian missiles and bombs are targeting the civilian population of Ukraine, how can the authorities ensure the safety of millions of voters and tens of thousands of election officials at polling stations? This fact also rules out the presence of international election observers.

How would the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men and women currently at the front lines participate in a wartime ballot? “It would be unfair if those defending our land were denied the opportunity to vote,” Zelensky says.

Security concerns would also rule out staging anything resembling a normal election campaign; you couldn’t allow election rallies and public meetings which would mean that such elections would not live up to internationally established democratic standards. And, again, this in itself would create the perfect opportunity for the Russian dictator and his propaganda machine to paint the elections as illegitimate.

Before you even would get that far, though, how would the authorities be able to conduct the necessary update of elections registers and secure that all Ukrainians could vote? The Russian invasion has displaced four million Ukrainians internally and even more outside the country, and five million are left in Russian-occupied territories.

Without the participation of all these Ukrainians, a third of the population, an election would fail to meet democratic standards. In an analysis called ‘Why Ukraine’s Elections Can Wait’, Olga Onuch and Lucan Way conclude that such an ‘election’ “would systematically underrepresent those Ukrainians most directly affected by the war. Chosen by only a rump of the population, winners of such elections might be considered illegitimate by a large part of the population. And Russia would likely launch its own accusations of illegitimacy in an effort to polarize Ukrainians and cast international doubt upon Ukraine’s democracy.

3) At the same time, Ukraine organizing elections without the voters in the occupied territories would immediately be trumpeted by the Kremlin as proof that Kyiv has accepted that these areas are no longer part of Ukraine, and that Kyiv has already legally recognized the loss. And Putin would undoubtedly use that claim in future peace negotiations.

4) As Zelensky has very low chances of holding on to his seat, he would in effect be a lame duck the minute elections were declared, and his authority would be gone. This is sweet music to Putin’s ears, of course. Again, why would the U.S. want this? And how does Washington think that this would help reaching a lasting peace?

5) As is obvious from this, insisting on elections before a real peace has been reached, opens up Ukraine and the Ukrainians for massive Russian disinformation campaigns. Not least now when Trump – by closing USAID – is killing off many of Ukraine’s independent media; these small, local media which are so important in the often remote and poorer communities along the frontline, incidentally also here where Russian media and propaganda are the strongest.

6) Finally, even if elections did go ahead, all of the above factors would deliver to Putin - on a silver platter - the argument that ‘Zelensky is not the legitimate president’, which after elections would morph into ‘after that faulty election process, X is not the legitimate president’.

A dictator who has never lived up to any international agreement that he has signed, would have all he needs in order to disown any future peace agreement with Ukraine - when, if and how it suits him.

In fact, the Russian dictator has already launched that particular campaign. His spokesman Dmitri Peskov has repeated ad nauseam regarding peace talks that “we are proceeding from the assumption that the Ukrainian President does not have the right to hold such talks.”

In other words, because of the actions of Messrs. Trump and Kellogg, Putin who three years ago invaded Ukraine now get to play the ‘bigger man’, declaring that he is “willing to negotiate with Zelensky despite his lack of legitimacy.”

You got to be kidding me.

Why on earth the Trump administration would want to sow insecurity and unpredictability in Ukraine in the run up to negotiations is difficult to understand. I will look at that baffling question later this week, as well as other issues in a little series of sad articles called “Trump making Putin happy.”

Stay tuned.