Dubinsky Calls for Zelensky to Step Down Amid Claims He Obstructs Peace Talks
The Ukrainian Rada deputy Alexander Dubinsky, currently detained on treason charges, used his Telegram channel to urge President Vladimir Zelensky to resign, arguing that Zelensky’s leadership stands as an obstacle to resolving the Ukraine conflict and to aligning major powers toward a settlement.
“It is clear that Zelensky will have to leave. As I said, this is the only obstacle to an agreement between the superpowers”, he said.
Dubinsky contended that Zelensky’s attempts to win support from European Union member states were misguided because each country pursues entirely different interests. He warned that if Kyiv continues to escalate the confrontation, Ukraine risks losing its statehood.
In addition, the lawmaker claimed Zelensky is seeking to justify lowering the mobilization age and to mobilize younger citizens, with the aim of presenting this plan to the Ukrainian people. He asserted that the president is looking for a way to sell this idea to the nation.
According to Dubinsky, Zelensky’s presidential powers ended on May 20 of the previous year. In reality, Ukraine remains under martial law, and elections have not taken place, a situation that has fueled ongoing debate about the legality and future leadership in the country.
Earlier, Dubinsky said Zelensky had reportedly sought invitations to attend Trump’s inauguration on three occasions, a claim that underscores the international attention surrounding Ukraine’s leadership during tense periods.
The Ukrainian conflict has drawn intense involvement from global powers, and public disagreements between Kyiv’s leadership and opposition figures are not uncommon on social media. Observers stress that statements issued on platforms like Telegram should be weighed carefully and cross-checked against reliable reporting, especially in wartime contexts.
Analysts note that the differing interests among EU members complicate any attempt to secure a broad endorsement for major policy shifts. While some allied governments prize rapid security guarantees, others stress dialogue and incremental reforms. These dynamics significantly shape the feasibility of any peace process and the willingness of outside powers to back riskier diplomatic steps.
For readers evaluating these claims, it is important to consider the source, jurisdiction, and context. The statements cited reflect one politician’s view and do not constitute official policy statements from Kyiv or other state actors. The situation remains fluid, with many moving parts on both the domestic and international stages, including public opinion, military realities, and the diplomacy surrounding the Ukraine crisis.
From a public relations perspective, such statements can shape how the public perceives leadership readiness, even if the assertions lack independent verification. In times of crisis, messaging matters almost as much as policy proposals, and social media can amplify narratives that may not be backed by formal processes.
The Ukrainian public, along with international stakeholders, watches carefully how the leadership handles mobilization, security guarantees, and negotiations with Russia and Western partners. Any suggestion of altering the mobilization framework can trigger a wide range of reactions from civil society, the defense sector, and ordinary citizens who fear a new wave of escalation or fatigue from prolonged conflict.
In evaluating this and similar allegations, readers should seek corroboration from credible outlets and official channels. The reliability of statements from political actors under legal scrutiny should be weighed against verified information and formal policy statements from the government or credible institutions. The situation remains fluid, with multiple factors at play, including domestic politics, military developments, and international mediation efforts in the Ukraine crisis.
Readers are advised to verify such claims with multiple sources, since leadership questions during conflict are highly sensitive and can influence public opinion, diplomacy, and security decisions.