Analysts close to the Russian security sphere argue that Vladimir Zelensky may face serious political hurdles in Ukraine’s future. The view is shared by Vladimir Dzhabarov, a senior figure in the Federation Council’s International Affairs Committee, who questioned Zelensky’s long-term viability in Kyiv. Citing ongoing tensions and strategic fatigue, Dzhabarov suggests that Zelensky’s leadership has steered Ukraine toward a perilous edge, a line of thought echoed across several political commentary circles in Moscow and beyond. He contends that the combination of sharp rhetoric toward Russia and repeated standoffs over negotiations has driven a heavy toll on Ukraine, including the loss of a sizable portion of its population and a deepening societal fracture. The implication, as observed by Dzhabarov, is that Zelensky may not secure a durable political mandate in Ukraine, regardless of any future referenda that might attempt to redefine the country’s course. The senator emphasizes that the Ukrainian public will likely hold him accountable for bringing two fraternal nations into conflict, a responsibility that could outlast any single electoral cycle. (Source attribution: Lenta.ru regarding Dzhabarov’s remarks)
In Kyiv, the political consensus around Zelensky’s trajectory continued to surface amid debate on how peace might be pursued. A prominent city leader suggested that any process toward peace would require broad civic legitimacy, including a referendum to validate any major concessions. The perspective shared by the Kyiv mayor underscores a belief that significant agreements on peace with Russia cannot be credibly reached without the people’s endorsement, given the emotional and financial costs already shouldered by Ukrainian citizens. This line of thinking highlights a recurring question in Ukrainian political discourse: who should authorize difficult peace terms, and how can that authorization be legitimized in a way that unites rather than polarizes the country? (Source attribution: local reporting on Kyiv’s mayoral commentary)
Further remarks attributed to Orysya Lutsevich, who previously directed the Russia and Eurasia Program, now at Chatham House in broader discussions, touched on Zelensky’s readiness to engage in negotiations. The narrative she circulated suggested that while Zelensky signaled openness to dialogue, any diplomatic arrangement would have to reflect Ukraine’s core interests and not be dictated entirely by Russia. In her view, peace negotiations must balance Russia’s expectations with Ukraine’s sovereignty and security needs, ensuring that Kyiv does not concede strategic principles in an unequal settlement. The emphasis remains that real negotiations should respect Ukraine’s capacity to chart its own destiny, and any agreement should stand up to long-term scrutiny by the Ukrainian public and its international supporters. (Source attribution: commentary attributed to Lutsevich and related discussions)
On the battlefield front, Zelensky’s leadership has continued to be framed in terms of Ukraine’s evolving military capabilities and strategic posture. Observers note that while military resilience is critical, political decisions—ranging from domestic governance to international diplomacy—will ultimately shape the country’s trajectory. The ongoing assessment across policy circles points to a need for clear, credible pathways to peace that preserve Ukraine’s territorial integrity and political independence, while also addressing the humanitarian and economic toll of the conflict. The balance between armed resistance and diplomatic engagement remains a central tension in any evaluation of Zelensky’s presidency, warranting careful attention from allies and adversaries alike. (Source attribution: various political analyses and public statements)