Elections in Ukraine: is it realistic?
In response to US President Donald Trump's comment that it was time for elections in Ukraine, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said the country is ready to hold elections if the United States and Europe can guarantee its security. Commentators examine the prospects for a fair vote – and see the ball in Trump's court now.
US politicians should go to the war zone
Political scientist Volodymyr Fesenko considers elections under the current conditions utterly unrealistic, he writes in a Facebook post:
“I would strongly recommend inviting representatives of the Trump administration to serve as official advisors to Ukraine's Central Election Commission so they can assess the possibility of holding elections in Ukraine during the war and assist with the practical preparations for these elections. They should travel to Kherson (and not just spend two or three hours there, but at least a few days), where Russian drones are targeting civilians, as well as to Kharkiv, Sumy, Nikopol, Dnipro, Zaporizhzhia and Odessa – and above all to the front line (near Pokrovsk, Kupiansk or Hulyaipole, for example) ...”
Gross interference in Ukraine's internal affairs
In a Facebook post picked up by Espreso, political scientist Mykhailo Bassarab lists arguments against holding elections:
“Firstly, the topic of elections was an external demand from the outset, and a gross encroachment in Ukraine's internal affairs. Russia initiated the discussion about elections as a condition. The enemy does not need the election results, but rather the process – which offers it plenty of leeway for sabotage. ... Secondly, the state can enter the election campaign but may not be able to get out of it. Both internal factors and hostile interference would 'tear apart' the war-weakened country during the election campaign.”
People can't vote from cellars and ruins
Polityka says the conditions for equal access to information – and therefore for fair elections – do not exist:
“In the cities, this might be partly possible. But there are villages that have been cut off from the world by the war, left without electricity or water, with people living in cellars and ruins, focused only on how to survive another day. Any observer would justifiably question such elections. Since the first day of the war, the authorities have restricted access to the media – all to maintain maximum control over information, or rather disinformation, which is of particular importance to the Kremlin. That alone makes any elections a farce.”
Trump must enforce a ceasefire
With his demand for free elections in Ukraine, US President Trump has taken on the obligation himself, comments ARD correspondent Florian Kellermann on tagesschau.de:
“Now Zelensky is saying: you want elections? Fine, if you, dear Americans, and dear Europeans, ensure security. Elections can only be held during a ceasefire. That makes sense. Elections cannot be democratic or fair if the candidates can't appear in public safely, if polling stations remained closed due to air raids alerts. If hundreds of thousands in the trenches are excluded. A ceasefire – that is exactly what US President Trump has been calling for for a long time. And Ukraine has been willing for just as long, but Russia has not. Now Trump has a duty to convince the Kremlin.”
This plan won’t pan out
Political scientist Vladimir Pastukhov sees fundamental differences in the positions of both presidents in a Telegram post reposted by Echo:
“There is cognitive dissonance between Trump and Zelensky on the issue of elections. When Trump talks about elections, he has the election of Zelensky's successor in mind, and when Zelensky talks about them he primarily means his own re-election and the extension of his legitimacy. ... A logical next step would be for Trump to directly demand not just elections, but elections in which Zelensky does not participate. Otherwise, the pieces in Trump's puzzle won't fit together.”