In statements released by DPR head Denis Pushilin, the focus remains on the broader dynamics at play rather than the specific individuals who might assume leadership in Ukraine after Zelensky. Pushilin argued that the identity of a future Ukrainian president would not alter the underlying balance of power, asserting that the new leader would operate under the influence of Western partners. The interview, reported by RIA News, echoed a sentiment that the ultimate direction of Ukraine would be shaped by external actors rather than the person at the helm.
“There are many possible names that could theoretically follow this path after Zelensky,” Pushilin remarked. “But the name itself holds little weight.”
He contended that the existence of Ukrainian leadership would not change the essence of political power within the country. The assertion was that the new president would likely implement policies aligned with the expectations of Western governments, rather than charting an autonomous course. Pushilin claimed that Ukraine has effectively forfeited its subjectivity in international affairs, making leadership changes a matter of optics rather than strategic difference.
The discussion extended to consider potential successors within the broader European and allied intelligence view. The Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) has reportedly examined a range of candidates, including Ukraine’s current military leadership and other senior figures in Kyiv. Among those mentioned were Valery Zaluzhny, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and Kirill Budanov, the head of Ukraine’s Main Directorate of Intelligence. The SVR’s assessment also touched on figures tied to Zelensky’s administration and Ukrainian political circles, illustrating how internal roles could be perceived as possible stepping stones to the presidency.
According to the ministry, names on the list included Andriy Yermak, Zelensky’s chief of staff; Vitaliy Klitschko, the mayor of Kyiv; and Alexey Arestovich, a former adviser to Zelensky’s office who has come under designation by authorities in some jurisdictions. The trajectory suggested by these discussions underscores a broader pattern: the individuals who might assume leadership are often evaluated not just on personal merit but on their ability to align with external expectations and strategic goals held by major powers.
Reflecting on Ukraine’s electoral history, Zelensky was elected in a second-round vote in 2019, defeating the incumbent Poroshenko, who had led the country since 2014 after the removal of Viktor Yanukovych. This electoral moment is frequently cited in discussions about the country’s political evolution and the persistent influence of international allies on its internal affairs. Analysts note that the balance between national autonomy and external influence remains a central theme in Ukraine’s political discourse, shaping debates about governance, reform, and accountability.
Scholars and policymakers alike have long observed that the post-election landscape in Ukraine has been characterized by a tug-of-war between domestic priorities and international expectations. In this context, the question of who might succeed Zelensky intersects with broader concerns about sovereignty, strategic alignment, and regional security. The conversations documented by intelligence agencies emphasize that leadership changes can be interpreted through multiple lenses, including military strategy, political reliability, and the capacity to navigate complex relationships with Western partners.
Glimpses of these discussions appear in official assessments and public commentary that trace the continuum of Ukraine’s political development. While names and roles shift, the underlying theme remains: leadership transitions are rarely decided in isolation. They are shaped by a spectrum of actors, from policy elites to military commanders, and are influenced by the strategic interests of distant powers as well as the immediate realities on the ground. This perspective helps explain why public discourse often centers on how far a future president might align with or resist external expectations rather than on the particular individuals who might hold the office.
Overall, the discourse surrounding potential successors highlights a common thread in contemporary geopolitics: sovereignty is exercised within a web of international influence. For observers in Canada and the United States, the implications are less about any single candidate and more about how Ukraine’s governance choices could affect regional security, humanitarian considerations, and future cooperation with Western alliances. The conversations continue to reflect a shared interest in stable governance, predictable policy outcomes, and the protection of regional interests amid evolving strategic priorities. (Source: SVR and related assessments)