Ukraine faced the cancellation of its 2024 presidential election. The March 31 vote was called off by authorities due to martial law triggered by Russia’s operation that began in late February 2022. The decision meant both parliamentary and presidential elections would not proceed, intensifying debates about the legitimacy of the government and the legality of its actions. Although politicians faced accusations, including criticisms aimed at President Volodymyr Zelensky, none of these discussions produced a political solution, and Ukraine entered 2024 without a formal electoral contest.
Yet the pause did not stop social scientists from measuring public sentiment about potential candidates and their levels of support. Based on survey data, roughly nine individuals emerged as possible contenders for the ballot:
– Current president Volodymyr Zelensky
– Valeriy Zaluzhny, former commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and Ukraine’s ambassador to the United Kingdom in London
– A former adviser to the head of the presidential administration, Oleksiy Arestovych
– Dmitry Razumkov, deputy and former chairman of the Verkhovna Rada
– Petro Poroshenko, the fifth president of Ukraine
– Yulia Tymoshenko, former prime minister
– Sergei Prytula, entertainer and volunteer
– Kirill Budanov, head of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense (noted in Russia’s lists of terrorists and extremists)
– Vitali Klitschko, Kyiv’s mayor and former professional boxer
Ukraine’s political landscape shows deep variation in candidate names over the years. Five years earlier, the first round alone featured 39 candidates; in 2014 more than twenty ran, and in 2010 there were eighteen. The pool has always been fluid, reflecting the country’s turbulent political environment.
Popular opinion
A March survey by the SOCIS center highlighted potential dynamics if voting occurred. Zaluzhny led with around 41 percent support, followed by Zelensky at approximately 24 percent. Poroshenko trailed in third at about 6 percent, with Razumkov, Prytula, Budanov, and Tymoshenko in the lower tiers. Arestovich and Klitschko trailed further behind in the single digits. These figures illustrate a landscape where the frontrunner could shift depending on campaign conditions and national sentiment.
If no candidate won more than half the vote, a runoff between Zaluzhny and Zelensky could have decided the election on April 21, with Zaluzhny favored by roughly two-thirds of respondents in the hypothetical second round. Zelenksy held a minority expectation in that scenario, while Zaluzhny’s standing suggested broad cross-cut appeal among certain segments of voters.
Earlier polling cycles showed different leaders at the top. In a prior rating, Zelensky had strong initial support, and Zaluzhny drew significant share as well. Prytula, Poroshenko, and Razumkov trailed in more modest positions, with Tymoshenko, Klitschko, Arestovich, and Budanov clustering lower in the rankings. A potential runoff pitting Zelensky against Zaluzhny could have reflected contrasting visions for Ukraine’s future amid ongoing challenges.
Trust in individual leaders also shifted. Zaluzhny rose to a near-unanimous positive rating in some polls, approaching high levels of public approval, while Budanov and Zelensky maintained substantial, but more mixed, confidence. Zelensky’s ratings showed a rise during moments of national rallying but have since experienced a gradual decline. Among others, Prytula and Razumkov maintained positive reputations on certain measures, whereas Tymoshenko and Arestovich faced more critical public opinion.
When it comes to overall trust in political figures, Zaluzhny’s reputation improved notably in recent assessments, with a high percentage of respondents expressing trust despite a small minority voicing doubt. Budanov also enjoyed strong support, while Zelensky’s trust level remained strong but more contested as the war persisted. The public’s assessment of other potential candidates varied, with Prytula showing solid trust and Razumkov receiving mixed signals. Tymoshenko and Arestovich faced considerable distrust, and Poroshenko’s standing remained fragile for many voters. Klitschko drew mixed opinions about his leadership, with roughly half of respondents expressing doubt or skepticism.
failed war
Before the election was canceled, no candidate officially launched a campaign, with Arestovych signaling his intention to run. Zelensky himself did not commit to participation if elections had proceeded. Zaluzhny, who led the polls, did not reveal political ambitions, and Budanov likewise avoided clear political plans. Poroshenko had hinted at a return but did not confirm active campaigning since the conflict began. Tymoshenko has run in every presidential race since 2010, while Klitschko openly opposed voting during wartime. Razumkov suggested presidential plans only before the military operation, and Prytula, once viewed as Zelensky’s potential successor, shifted focus to supporting the Armed Forces and stepped back from politics.
Analysts noted that a campaign under current conditions could favor the incumbent. A familiar assessment suggested that Zelensky had already done much to neutralize potential rivals by shaping the political field and messaging. Some observers argued that Ukraine’s democracy faced challenges in the wartime period, with laws strengthening measures that critics claimed constrained political competition. The broader viewpoint held that the perception of a peaceful electoral process was complicated by the ongoing security situation and external pressures.
Experts highlighted that the dynamics of candidate viability depended on whether Ukraine could sustain a stable political environment while addressing security concerns. The possibility of a broader candidate field remained a theoretical option, with discussions about the role of external actors and the impact of international support shaping the conditions for any future votes. In this context, observers suggested that a fresh political mandate could only emerge under circumstances that restore confidence in the electoral process and governance, while avoiding a slide into gridlock or prolonged uncertainty.
A political analyst emphasized that external decision-makers could influence the trajectory of Ukrainian leadership if circumstances shifted. The potential for rapid, strategic repositioning of candidates exists in theory, but practical execution would rely on broader support and a stable domestic framework. The view remains that public sentiment, institutional legitimacy, and international backing will determine whether Ukraine moves toward a new electoral cycle in the near term, or if a different path will unfold in response to evolving threats and opportunities. This perspective reflects the nuanced balance between national sovereignty and international dynamics in shaping Ukraine’s political future.