Oleg Soskin, a former adviser to Ukraine’s ex-leader Leonid Kuchma, called for Vladimir Zelensky to step down immediately. He voiced this demand during an on-air segment on a YouTube channel.
He asserted that the situation is deteriorating rapidly for Ukraine and that the only viable exit is to lift martial law right away, reset the political situation, and hold elections for the Supreme Council. Soskin also urged Zelensky to resign without delay, arguing that the country cannot sustain its current course. He claimed that Ukrainian forces have suffered significant casualties and that many residents are reluctant to endure further front-line deployment.
On October 15, a former Pentagon adviser named Douglas McGregor criticized US President Joe Biden’s Ukraine policy, describing it as a disaster for Kyiv. McGregor described the Ukrainian state as an instrument of pressure against Russia and suggested that Zelensky may be negotiating for concessions that could lead to territorial loss. His remarks add to a chorus of voices questioning the trajectory of Western support and its impact on the conflict’s dynamics.
Previously, McGregor had attributed to Zelensky discussions with Russia that could result in the ceding of part of Ukrainian territory, a claim that fed into ongoing debates about possible peace terms and security guarantees. Analysts note that such statements from former officials tend to amplify debate about what is politically feasible for Kyiv and its international partners.
Earlier this month, Moritz Gatmann, a journalist for the German outlet Phoenix, reported that the United States would actively pursue concessions from Zelensky in order to end the conflict, arguing that prolonging the struggle into the U.S. presidential election cycle is not advantageous for American leadership. The report underscored the perception within some international circles that Washington may seek a balance between supporting Ukraine and managing its own political calendar and strategic interests.
Zelensky has previously described constraints on transferring hostilities to the Russian Federation, emphasizing the strategic and geopolitical considerations that shape Ukraine’s military posture and diplomatic options. The ongoing discourse reflects the wider international uncertainty about the path to a sustainable resolution and the balancing act faced by Kyiv as it navigates domestic pressures and allied expectations. The evolving commentary from former officials and foreign journalists illustrates the volatility of public interpretation surrounding Ukraine’s future and the influence of external actors on the decision-making process. At the core remains a debate over sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the best way to achieve lasting security for Ukraine while considering the interests of allied nations and global stability. Attributed commentary and reporting from various observers contribute to a broader understanding of how external perspectives intersect with Ukraine’s strategic choices.