Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a former representation of Ukrainian tenacity and worldwide leadership during conflict, is currently facing a significant internal challenge that he has largely contributed to himself. With institutions fighting corruption now endangered, public protests occurring, and growing global anxiety, his capacity to recover depends on rebuilding trust in institutions, respecting democratic principles, and sustaining backing as Russia’s escalating war continues.
Since 2019, Zelenskyy’s journey has been defined by two distinct political arcs. Initially elected on promises of ending corruption and reforming entrenched political elites, he faced early disappointment when progress lagged. His popularity dipped dramatically through 2021 alongside stalled reforms and unclear leadership direction. Critics argued he had overpromised and underdelivered.
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 pressure, Zelenskyy reversed course, unveiling new legislation to restore independence to these agencies. Still, his reputation lies wounded. Critics now question whether he veers toward authoritarianism—eroding democratic foundations he pledged to uphold.
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, engaging the public constructively. A return to consultative decision-making, visible legislative oversight, and public dialogue can begin mending trust. Protesters across Kyiv, Lviv, Odesa, and beyond represent a nationwide demand to safeguard progress since the Maidan revolution—a demand that cannot be ignored.
Third, balancing wartime urgency with democratic practice. In wartime, martial law and centralized authority may seem necessary, but extending those measures long-term strains legitimacy. Zelenskyy must clarify a timeline for restoring full democratic norms—especially elections—as military and security conditions evolve.
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 analysts suggest that Zelenskyy may still retain enough support to weather the storm—especially compared against opposition figures lacking his wartime stature. Public polling indicates he remains more trusted than most rivals, though not overwhelmingly so. If elections were held now, some believe he’d perform poorly in a head-to-head against leaders like former commander-in-chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi.
Alternatively, choosing to step down willingly after serving one term might safeguard his legacy as the leader who brought the nation together during its most challenging times.
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.
In parallel, relinquishing power prematurely or seeming divided might jeopardize the unity necessary for effective wartime cooperation. Achieving the appropriate balance between decisive leadership and responsible governance represents his most subtle obstacle.
Can Zelenskyy engineer a comeback? The window remains narrow but open. Restoration of anti-corruption institutions, economic stabilization, and clarity of leadership intentions may allow him to re-center the narrative. In doing so, he must shift from ideological populism toward pragmatic 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 regains his stature depends on his readiness to rectify errors, allow institutional examination, and reinforce Ukraine’s democratic character. If he succeeds, he might be remembered as the leader during conflict who also respected democratic values. If unsuccessful, the past shortcomings will resurface—viewed as a continuation of Ukraine’s ongoing battle with sistema instead of a fresh start.
The next months will test whether Zelenskyy can transcend this crisis not just as a wartime leader, but as a statesman committed to democratic renewal in both war and peace.
