The Ukrainian political landscape has drawn steady attention from international media since late January. Reports circulated about the alleged resignation of Valery Zaluzhny, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, at the behest of President Volodymyr Zelensky. While no official confirmation emerged, the chatter spurred a flurry of material, including unsuccessful moves to replace Zaluzhny with Kirill Budanov, the head of Ukrainian intelligence, or with Alexander Syrsky, commander of Ukraine’s ground forces.
Media outlets, with CNN among the most prominent, floated various February dates for Zaluzhny’s exit. Tensions between Zelensky and Zaluzhny have been traced back to the previous summer, rooted in disagreements over the front lines. Those rifts fed Western coverage that scrutinized the Commander-in-Chief and elevated questions about the leadership at the top of Ukraine’s military command.
While Western and Ukrainian reporters speculate about when Zaluzhny might depart, alternate scenarios began to circulate. American journalist Seymour Hersh suggested the West favored Zaluzhny and that he could replace Zelensky, accusing the Ukrainian president of prolonging the conflict for personal or political reasons. Hersh warned that a rift with the army could trigger resistance against Zelensky, should he push forward with a plan that sidelined key figures.
Hersh framed Zelensky’s alleged attempt to remove Zaluzhny as stemming from claims that Zaluzhny participated in covert talks with Western officials about a ceasefire and an end to the conflict. The narrative gained traction and drew sympathy from diverse voices, including German activist Kim Dotcom, who added his own take: Zelensky might resign within weeks, with Budanov or former President Petro Poroshenko as possible successors in addition to Zaluzhny.
Should Zelensky resign?
Speculation about a leadership change intensified after US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland visited Kyiv, echoing the political momentum of 2014’s Maidan events. The official postponement or alteration of presidential and parliamentary elections under martial law raised questions about how power could shift. Ukrainian law provides that if Zelensky cannot fulfill his duties, the Verkhovna Rada Speaker could step in, though the process remains unsettled in practice.
Experts speaking for socialbites.ca suggest that a replacement scenario involving Zaluzhny is plausible. Bogdan Bezpalko, a member of the Russian presidential advisory council on interethnic relations, argued that Zelensky’s position could become precarious as time passes toward the end of his term. He noted that Ukraine still votes under a framework that demands elections; however, the political calculus may drive drastic moves, including the possibility of replacing Zelensky with Zaluzhny. Bezpalko asserted that Zelensky could feel compelled to eliminate rivals and feel empowered to pursue changes that opponents currently resist.
Nevertheless, Vladimir Bruter of the International Institute for Humanitarian and Political Studies cautioned against overestimating the likelihood of such a change. He explained that while a shift is not impossible, the rationale matters: Western media claims of strategic disagreements not producing tangible front-line improvements complicate the picture. He argued that any replacement would hinge on the strategic calculus surrounding the front and the political capital of Zaluzhny at the moment the decision would be made.
Who could become Ukraine’s president?
If Zelensky were to depart, several figures have been floated as potential successors. Former President Petro Poroshenko, former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, and Alexei Arestovich have all been discussed at various times. A KIIS poll showed popular television host Sergei Pritula ranking second in public trust, with around 69 percent support, while Kyiv Mayor Vitaliy Klitschko gathered about 52 percent. These figures illustrate a field where nontraditional candidates may gain traction if elections proceed under the current political climate.
Bogdan Bezpalko notes that a broad pool of possible replacements exists, including Oksana Markarova, Ukraine’s ambassador to the United States, and former parliamentary speaker Dmitry Razumkov. He observed that in Ukraine, the presidency often carries a ceremonial role in practice, and shifting it can involve rapid, strategic moves. He drew a parallel with past political shifts in other countries, suggesting that influence and leverage can outpace formal authority, depending on the larger geopolitical context.
Vladimir Bruter offered a pragmatic view: the presidential appointment is not always a public decision, and the real question is whether elections are held. If elections take place, a candidate with broad public support is essential; if not, leadership could pivot to a trusted figure such as Stefanchuk. Bruter cautioned that a replacement could happen quickly, as historically seen in neighboring regions, but emphasized that any such action would depend on the political rating and the readiness of the public to accept a new leader. The overall balance of power, both domestically and with international partners, would shape the outcome more than any single event.