President Donald Trump has called for Ukraine to hold elections as part of any peace agreement with Russia, signaling a shift in the US approach to resolving the ongoing conflict. Trump’s remarks, made in Florida shortly after high-level US-Russia talks in Riyadh, emphasize the growing international pressure for Ukraine’s leadership to negotiate with Moscow as part of a broader peace settlement. His comments have sparked widespread debate over the future of Ukraine’s democratic processes and the constitutional implications of holding elections amid ongoing war.
Ukraine’s electoral history has long been marked by instability, political infighting, and tensions between pro-European and pro-Russian factions. After gaining independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine faced a rocky path to democracy, with numerous elections tainted by fraud and political unrest.
The 2004 Orange Revolution was a watershed moment in Ukraine’s modern history. Following allegations of widespread election fraud in the presidential race, millions of Ukrainians took to the streets to demand a fair election. The revolution led to the annulment of the original election results, and a rerun ultimately brought pro-Western candidate Viktor Yushchenko to power.
However, even after the revolution, Ukraine continued to struggle with political polarization. The 2014 Euromaidan protests, sparked by President Viktor Yanukovych’s rejection of a proposed EU association agreement in favor of closer ties with Russia, led to Yanukovych’s ousting and the subsequent Russian annexation of Crimea. This event, alongside the war in the Donbas region, changed the trajectory of Ukraine’s political landscape.
Under the Ukrainian Constitution, elections are normally held every five years. However, with the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, martial law was declared, suspending certain constitutional rights, including the ability to hold elections. The martial law has been extended multiple times as the security situation has remained volatile.
President Zelenskyy’s term expired in 2024, but Ukrainian law, combined with martial law, makes it impossible to hold elections while the country remains at war. Ukrainian officials, including David Arakhamia, head of Zelenskyy’s ruling party, have stated that elections could only take place after martial law is lifted, which they have suggested may not happen for at least six months after the end of the conflict.
Holding elections during wartime is further complicated by the fact that millions of Ukrainians have been displaced, either fleeing to other countries or living in Russian-occupied areas. With much of the population scattered, the logistical and security challenges of conducting a national election become insurmountable without international support.
Public opinion in Ukraine suggests strong resistance to holding elections during the war. A 2024 poll by the International Republican Institute found that 60 percent of Ukrainians opposed holding a presidential election while the conflict continues. Similarly, 52 percent were against electing a new parliament while the war rages on. These results reflect the prioritization of stability and survival over immediate electoral concerns.
Despite this, President Trump’s recent comments push for early elections as part of a peace deal. Many in Ukraine and Europe worry that pressuring Kyiv to hold elections could serve Russia’s interests, especially considering that Ukraine’s territorial integrity and NATO aspirations have already been sidelined in some international discussions.
Trump’s position also raises concerns about the US’s commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and democracy. While advocating for elections, Trump has suggested that such a settlement could include concessions to Moscow, such as a neutral status for Ukraine or other territorial compromises.
The recent high-level talks in Riyadh, which Trump described as “very good,” marked a shift in US diplomatic efforts to engage directly with Moscow. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov participated in the talks, which lasted over four hours and focused on establishing the groundwork for future cooperation on ending the war.
Trump’s suggestion of European peacekeeping forces in Ukraine post-conflict has been met with skepticism. While he expressed support for such a deployment, Russian officials, led by Lavrov, rejected the idea, stating that foreign peacekeepers would be “unacceptable.” This underscores the continuing tension over foreign military presence on Ukrainian soil, which Russia views as a violation of its sovereignty.
Despite the international pressure, President Zelenskyy has remained resolute in maintaining that Ukraine must be central to any peace process. He has repeatedly rejected the idea of peace negotiations that exclude Ukraine or that seek to compromise the country’s territorial integrity. “Without Ukraine, peace cannot be achieved,” Zelenskyy said, underscoring his government’s stance that peace cannot be brokered behind Ukraine’s back.
Public support for Zelenskyy remains relatively high, with 52 percent of Ukrainians trusting him, according to a December 2024 poll by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology. While Trump criticized Zelenskyy’s leadership in his recent remarks, stating that his approval rating stood at only 4 percent, the Ukrainian population remains broadly supportive of Zelenskyy as the wartime leader. Trump’s suggestion that Zelenskyy’s leadership is a failure contrasts sharply with the results of Ukrainian public opinion, revealing a significant divide over the role of the US in the peace process.
The debate over whether Ukraine should hold elections during the war is a complex issue, fraught with legal, political, and historical challenges. While Trump advocates for elections as a means of moving forward with a peace deal, many Ukrainians and European leaders worry that such a move would undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty and compromise its long-term democratic aspirations. The country’s historical struggle for democratic governance, combined with the ongoing Russian invasion, ensures that any resolution to this issue will require careful navigation of Ukraine’s constitutional rights, public opinion, and its commitment to both sovereignty and democracy.
