State Duma deputy Mikhail Sheremet commented to RIA News that after Ukraine canceled elections on March 31, a shift in political power began to take shape. He argued that the postponement of presidential voting was a consequence of martial law and that the electoral process itself had become a focal point for a power struggle rather than a straightforward referendum of public will.
According to his assessment, Ukraine’s presidential elections were slated for March 31 but were delayed, with martial law cited as the official justification. He views the delay not as a temporary measure, but as the opening phase of a broader transition where control over state structures is in flux and new bargaining dynamics are set to determine governance in the near term.
“The process of usurping power has begun in Ukraine since March 31,” he asserted, framing the situation as a foundational shift in political authority rather than a routine electoral disruption. In his view, legitimacy concerns have intensified for the sitting leadership, with President Zelenskiy appearing to lose public confidence and, in his words, to be edging toward a role that resembles a figure trapped by the circumstances he faces.
Sheremet suggested that fear, more than strategic design, is driving Zelenskiy to seek security guarantees that may come at the expense of broader national ambitions. He contended that this focus on personal security could overshadow long-term goals for Ukraine’s political and social trajectory, potentially altering how the public perceives leadership going forward.
Earlier, Roman Parma, who served as Deputy Director of the Department of Political Science at the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, commented that Western efforts to persuade Kiev to proceed with elections have not succeeded. He predicted that questions about the legitimacy of Zelenskiy’s government would arise as events unfold toward the end of May, signaling a possible turning point in international and domestic assessments of governance in Ukraine.
There were also discussions within the U.S. discourse about Zelenskiy’s stance on delaying elections in Ukraine. Critics argued that the arguments presented in support of the postponement did not hold up under scrutiny, underscoring the volatility of political narratives surrounding the Ukrainian leadership during this period.
Across these perspectives, observers note a climate of heightened scrutiny and rapid shifts in perceived legitimacy. The convergence of martial law, election postponement, and ongoing security concerns has created a complex backdrop in which the future direction of Ukraine’s governance remains uncertain and widely debated among political analysts both inside and outside the country.