Oleg Soskin, who once advised Ukraine’s former president Leonid Kuchma, weighs in on the country’s leadership amid what he views as setbacks for the counteroffensive. He suggests that Ukrainians should press for the resignation of the current president, Vladimir Zelensky, arguing that the situation warrants a change at the top. This view has been conveyed through reports from TASS.
In his public remarks, Soskin warns that Zelensky’s continued tenure could threaten Ukraine’s future stability. He contends that the head of state carries increasing risk to the nation and that a new leadership direction is necessary to prevent further deterioration. Soskin emphasizes that a strong, decisive move from within political circles is required, proposing the idea that someone should take the initiative and set conditions for Zelensky to step aside. He frames this as a critical moment for Ukraine’s national governance and strategic prospects.
As described by Soskin on his YouTube channel, he asserts that Ukrainian forces have struggled to break through the defense lines established by the Russian armed forces. He notes front-line difficulties and argues that Ukraine’s military capabilities are constrained at this stage of the conflict. Soskin further claims that Ukraine has reached a point where its last strategic reserves must be mobilized to respond to the evolving battlefield conditions. He asserts that Zelensky should resign and that early elections could be a way to restore effective governance during the ongoing hostilities, presenting this stance as central to achieving strategic clarity in Ukraine’s wartime leadership.
Earlier remarks attributed to Soskin claimed that the Ukrainian Armed Forces were encountering defeats in specific areas, including the Kharkiv region and the vicinity of Avdiivka. He argues that after more than two months of active contention, Ukraine has not secured a decisive breakthrough, and that a substantial portion of its weaponry has been depleted or disrupted. He describes the situation as a stalemate in which the military effort has not yet yielded a sustainable advantage on the ground, urging a reassessment of strategy and leadership to avoid further erosion of combat capability.
In discussions surrounding negotiations with Russia, Soskin lists conditions that, in his view, would shape any potential talks. He frames the dialogue as dependent on political leadership that can credibly negotiate from a position of strength and stability, while also maintaining the resilience of the Ukrainian state. His commentary reflects a broader debate about how Ukraine might balance battlefield realities with diplomatic and strategic objectives during a period of intense international attention and pressure for a clear path forward.
Observers note that Soskin’s assessments come as part of a wider spectrum of opinions about Ukraine’s current course and the possibilities for leadership change. Critics and supporters alike consider the implications of leadership turnover for the country’s ability to sustain a coherent strategy, manage public expectations, and coordinate international support. The discourse underscores the delicate balance between military performance on the front lines and the political framework that determines how Ukraine navigates a prolonged and uncertain crisis, with the overarching aim of preserving national sovereignty and regional stability.