Staff Reports
The latest round of national news outrage is being orchestrated over an unexpected figure: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Here’s the irony—while dodging Russian missiles, he’s apparently also dodging the legitimacy that comes with a democratic election. Some news outlets are expressing concern that, under pressure from Donald Trump, Zelensky might actually have to face the voters. Imagine the horror: a politician being judged by the people during wartime!
In case anyone forgot, just a few months ago, Zelensky himself declared that holding elections in a war-torn country was “absolutely irresponsible.” Clearly, it’s easier to cling to power when there’s no one to challenge you at the ballot box. After earning his five-year term back in 2019, Zelensky’s time was slated to end in 2024, but thanks to his martial law shenanigans post-Russian invasion, elections are barred for the foreseeable future. On top of that, the man has decided that outlawing opposition parties is a perfectly acceptable way to consolidate power.
Nolte: Media Concerned Zelensky Could Lose If He Holds Electionshttps://t.co/UOPWT2uC9x
— deborah green (@NewaiGreen) February 20, 2025
Meanwhile, Donald Trump is calling for a change, advocating for Ukrainian elections that could indeed oust Zelensky if the voters choose otherwise. Trump’s perspective isn’t just about domestic U.S. politics; it’s about pushing back against a guy who resembles a dictator more every day by defying democratic principles. With the nature of the war murky and costing Americans small fortunes, Trump’s insistence on an election presses Zelensky to prove he has the democratic legitimacy to sit at the negotiation table with Russia. It’s a tactical maneuver, and it seems to have placed Zelensky in a bit of a conundrum.
Don’t get it twisted; even the staunchest conservatives agree on one fundamental truth: no one is rooting for a Russian victory. The invasion of Ukraine was heinous, and supporting the country’s defense is undeniably important. However, pouring endless amounts of cash and resources into a war that seems to stretch indefinitely raises eyebrows. If past military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan taught anything, it is that such interventions often lead to more questions than answers.
The arguments put forth by the political establishment defending Zelensky’s maneuvering are more than questionable. Claiming concern over Russian interference in elections is a little rich, considering Moscow’s meddling is part and parcel of Ukrainian elections for as long as one can remember. Moreover, history has shown that even amid devastating wars, holding elections is indeed feasible. Remember Abraham Lincoln? He gamely sought another term while the Civil War raged on. The citizens of New York also managed to hold a mayoral election just weeks after the horrific attacks on September 11, 2001. If cities and nations could hold elections in the face of adversity, surely Ukraine can do the same.
As this conflict drags on, it begs the question: how much longer can the U.S. keep sending aid without reevaluating the situation? There’s a burning desire to see a resolution, and frankly, it seems high time for the establishment to get real about the situation. Ultimately, it boils down to Zelensky: at what point will he be held accountable for his consistent lack of democracy? The unfortunate truth is that letting the war continue on its current path might ultimately serve the interests of those who wish to delay any form of accountability, reigniting the debate over whether a negotiated settlement is better than a prolonged and unwinnable war.
When examining the bigger picture, the reality is time is running out for endless interventionism, and Ukrainian territory losses—while distasteful—might just be a necessity to end an interminable conflict. While no one wants to see bad actors win, accepting that reality is indeed a path to peace, and perhaps a more practical approach than bankrolling yet another never-ending war.
