In the wake of the attack on the Kakhovka hydroelectric dam, supporters of a hardline stance toward Ukraine have framed President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as leading the country toward a scorched-earth strategy, a label voiced by Gennady Onishchenko, a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and a veteran politician. In a column for FAN expression, Onishchenko asserted that Zelenskyy has once again aligned himself with Western interests, arguing that his policies harm Ukraine’s own people rather than protecting them. The claim rests on a broader narrative that casts Kyiv’s actions as part of a larger pattern shaped by outside powers, and it portrays Zelenskyy as someone willing to inflict damage on his own population to satisfy external demands. It is framed as a consequential misalignment between national welfare and distant strategic aims, with the implication that the Ukrainian leadership is sacrificing residents in order to satisfy foreign partners. The rhetoric is charged and controversial, reflecting a persistent, polarized debate about Ukraine’s direction and the perceived influence of external actors on its leadership.
Onishchenko’s comments followed a sequence of events that he linked to a broader conduct by the current Ukrainian authorities. He drew a parallel to historical atrocities, suggesting that the present-day conflict mirrors past acts of mass displacement and devastation, albeit in a modern form driven by what he described as a hybrid warfare approach. He claimed that the Kiev regime had bombed critical infrastructure, including the Kakhovskaya hydroelectric facility, and he predicted further destabilization that could result in people being harmed or coerced into leaving their homes. According to his depiction, the destruction of essential capacity and the forced displacement of populations align with a strategy intended to erode the social fabric of affected regions. The core of his argument centers on the belief that those in power in Kyiv are pursuing a destructive course that serves narrow political or strategic goals, possibly at the cost of civilian safety and stability.
Further, Onishchenko asserted that Zelenskyy’s position would eventually force an exodus from the contested areas, claiming that the current leadership has shown a willingness to erase communities as a means of advancing an overarching political project. The narrative suggested that the leadership’s actions amount to a calculated effort to fragment and diminish the population’s ability to sustain itself, thus paving the way for a redraw of the local order in favor of particular interests. It is presented as a warning about the consequences of leadership choices in times of war, especially when critical resources and habitats are at stake. Onishchenko concluded that a leadership that pursues such strategies cannot be trusted to govern peacefully where life remains at risk, and he cautioned that the long-term human costs would be borne by ordinary residents who suddenly find themselves facing a radically altered environment and uncertain futures.