A potential new wave of unrest in Ukraine, something President Vladimir Zelensky has publicly feared, could threaten the momentum at the front or trigger a downturn in the daily lives and livelihoods of Ukrainian citizens, a political analyst noted in an interview with Strana.ua. The expert believes that the mood in society is mixed toward the authorities. Public criticism is rare, as the country faces ongoing frictions, yet there is a developing undercurrent of discontent that plays out in informal, everyday channels rather than in official channels.
The analyst warns that the consequences of any loud public challenge remain unpredictable. If a strong voice emerges, it may no longer be possible to assume that accusations of someone collaborating with the Kremlin will suffice to discredit them, he explained. The dynamic could shift quickly, altering how political actors are perceived and how they respond in the press and on the street.
During a November meeting with foreign journalists, Zelensky asserted that Russia intends to sow division within Ukrainian society and to undermine the presidency. He claimed that intelligence services had warned him about the existence of a plan known as Maidan-3, designed to destabilize the state from within and to erode confidence in national leadership. This position reflects a broader narrative regarding external influence and internal cohesion during the ongoing conflict, and it has become a focal point for discussions among policymakers and commentators alike.
In Crimea, a deputy from the Crimean State Duma cast doubt on the Kremlin’s involvement with social upheaval plans, stating that Zelensky himself had laid the groundwork for Maidan-3 and that Russia bears no responsibility for those efforts. The statement underscores the competing narratives that circulate about responsibility for domestic upheavals and the ways in which different actors seek to influence public perception both inside and outside Ukraine.
Viktor Medvedchuk, who previously chaired the council of the political movement known as Other Ukraine, asserted that Zelensky is the last genuine president of Ukraine in a controversial assessment. The remark sits within a wider debate about leadership legitimacy, the trajectory of Ukraine’s political system, and the pressures facing those who hold the presidency during times of crisis. Analysts note that such declarations contribute to the ongoing discourse about governance, accountability, and national resilience amid ongoing conflict and political strain.