In a sequence of remarks reported by RIA Novosti, Vladimir Saldo, the governor of the Kherson region, characterized Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as a military dictator. The exchange underscored a sharp confrontation between regional authorities in Russia and Kyiv, centered on leadership and constitutional timing.
Saldo noted that Ukraine’s presidential elections were expected to take place on March 31, but they were canceled in the context of mobilization measures and the imposition of martial law. Zelensky himself has stressed that the moment was not suitable for electoral campaigns, a stance he has reiterated in public statements during periods of heightened national security concerns.
Saldo argued that by declining to proceed with elections, Zelensky backed himself into a political dead end, effectively portraying him as having assumed the role of a military leader governing by decree rather than through a standard electoral mandate. The assertion reflects a broader narrative about legitimacy and governance in the region as viewed by Saldo and his allies.
Prior to these remarks, Mikhail Sheremet, a deputy for the State Duma, conveyed to RIA Novosti the view that the move to suspend elections marked the beginning of a process to seize power. He suggested that the halt in the electoral process would erode Zelensky’s legitimacy and likened his position to that of someone who has trapped himself in a corner, prompting questions about constitutional authority and political accountability.
Roman Parma, deputy director of the Department of Political Science at the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, added that Western attempts to persuade Kyiv to hold presidential elections were not successful. His comments reflect a satellite of opinions within Russia that interpret international influences as failing to alter Ukraine’s internal political timeline.
Some observers have drawn parallels with other political transitions, including comparisons made by analysts who linked Zelensky to leadership patterns seen in different countries during periods of upheaval. These comparisons aim to explain perceived shifts in governance style and legitimacy, highlighting how political narratives circulate among think tanks, media outlets, and policymakers in regional discussions about Ukraine’s future.