By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Ukrainian opposition leaders Poroshenko and Tymoshenko, despite reported contacts with U.S. officials regarding potential wartime elections, firmly oppose holding a vote until after peace is established. Both insist that elections should occur within 180 days of the war’s conclusion, rejecting calls for an immediate vote. This stance follows reports of discussions between Trump’s associates and Ukrainian opposition figures about the possibility of expedited elections. The current Ukrainian law prohibits wartime elections, and Zelenskiy has offered to step down in exchange for peace and NATO membership.
Read the original article here
Ukrainian opposition leaders are unequivocally dismissing the idea of holding elections during the ongoing war. The very notion seems absurd considering the current circumstances; millions of Ukrainians are displaced, both internally and abroad, making it practically impossible to guarantee a fair and representative vote.
The logistical challenges alone are insurmountable. How could one ensure the safe and accessible participation of those currently residing in war zones or occupied territories? How could the integrity of votes cast by millions of refugees in foreign countries be verified? Even attempting to organize an election under such chaotic conditions would be a monumental undertaking, likely riddled with irregularities and severely compromised results.
Furthermore, the security risks are undeniable. Holding an election during wartime would be incredibly dangerous, potentially exposing candidates and election officials to violence and intimidation. This is especially true given the precarious political landscape and the ongoing conflict. The current president’s personal safety is already compromised, with various rumors and concerns floating around, emphasizing the considerable risks involved for all participants.
Beyond the logistical and security concerns, the political climate fundamentally negates the viability of wartime elections. The current president enjoys broad support, as evidenced by a unanimous vote of confidence in parliament – a remarkably rare occurrence. The opposition, rather than seizing the opportunity to exploit perceived weaknesses, seems to recognize that now is not the time to engage in political maneuvering. In their eyes, this war is an existential threat, one requiring stable and unified leadership. Any attempt to force a change of power would almost certainly be perceived as undermining national unity and potentially destabilizing the country further at a critical moment.
This unified front against a wartime election stands in stark contrast to the calls for such an election coming from some external sources, some possibly motivated by the desire to weaken or destabilize Ukraine. It seems these external parties are missing the obvious: a wartime election would be both impractical and highly damaging to Ukraine. The focus should be on winning the war, not fighting over political power.
The opposition’s rejection of this idea is a direct repudiation of external pressures and a clear demonstration of their commitment to national unity and stability at a time of extreme peril. Any attempts to sow discord or undermine the current leadership are unlikely to succeed given the deep understanding of the dire consequences. The overwhelming priority for Ukraine, and for its opposition, is the survival and eventual liberation of the country. The pursuit of power is secondary to this overriding national imperative.
Even those who have historically been political rivals of the current president have publicly stated their opposition to wartime elections. This unexpected unity demonstrates a remarkable level of political maturity and responsibility. Their shared focus on the urgent need for national unity during this crisis transcends past differences. It showcases the seriousness of the situation and the willingness of all parties to put the country’s well-being above individual ambitions. The emphasis is on stability and continuity of leadership, not political posturing.
The push for an election during this war is clearly not only impractical but potentially harmful to Ukraine. Holding an election would be a logistical nightmare, extremely risky for all parties involved, and is also highly unlikely to produce a legitimate result. The timing is simply wrong; the immediate focus must remain on defending the country and pushing back against the aggressor. The desire for a fair and legitimate election in the future remains, but that must await a time when the nation is not embroiled in a war for its very existence. The unity shown by the Ukrainian opposition against this proposal reveals a commitment to the nation’s future stability and a shared understanding of the severe risks involved.