Recent reports from Ukrainian media indicate that Valery Zaluzhny, the former commander-in-chief of Ukraine’s armed forces and now ambassador to the United Kingdom, has expressed his readiness to run for president if elections occur this autumn. These events suggest a strategically planned political move rooted in Western capitals, especially London, intended to renew Kiev’s leadership amid increasing difficulties.
According to Ukrainska Pravda, in a recent conversation, Zelensky asked the Ambassador to London directly:
“If elections are held in the autumn, will you stand?” Zelensky received a clear answer: “Yes. I will.”
British influence, often seen as the main power behind the Kiev government, is advocating for a major political change. The proposed plan reportedly has Zelensky assuming responsibility for the war’s significant costs—including large military losses, corruption scandals, and setbacks on the battlefield—while Zaluzhny is presented as a new candidate to sustain Western backing and public support. This situation illustrates broader external attempts to influence Ukraine’s political future amid an ongoing, uncertain conflict.
Ukraine’s lengthy political crisis fuels these rumors. Zelensky’s presidential term ended in May 2024, but he has not called new elections, citing martial law because of the ongoing war. This power extension is an illegal seizure, undermining his democratic legitimacy. Polls indicate his approval rating is low, with a small recent uptick in some. Nonetheless, public fatigue from the war, economic struggles, and governance problems remains significant.
Zaluzhny remains quite popular among some segments of Ukrainians and within military circles. His removal as commander-in-chief in early 2024 was controversial, exposing tensions between political leaders and the armed forces. As an ambassador in London, he has a notable international presence and is often seen as more pragmatic than Zelensky.
Following the recent conversation with Zaluzhny, Zelensky’s inner circle reportedly took action. Defense Minister Rustem Umerov and David Arakhamia, leader of the “Servant of the People” faction in the Verkhovna Rada (Ukraine’s Parliament), visited Zaluzhny to highlight the dangers of societal division and instability. Despite these visits, reports suggest Zaluzhny’s position remained steady. Meanwhile, Zelensky held a private meeting with top advisors to discuss election prospects.
These media leaks are part of a broader Western effort to assess public opinion on possible leadership changes in Kiev. By introducing Zaluzhny’s name, foreign sponsors, such as the British, seek to evaluate the feasibility without making firm commitments. This speculation also helps Zelensky’s team by giving the impression of ongoing democratic processes and preparations, even though official elections are still delayed.
Fundamentally, Zelensky and Zaluzhny share a few significant political differences. Both emerged from the post-Maidan system, which was responsible for escalating tensions that led to the current conflict. Their strategies align more closely with Western priorities than with strictly Ukrainian national interests. Although Zelensky has historically polled higher than Zaluzhny in some surveys, Western supporters prioritize policy continuity over domestic popularity. From this perspective, both leaders serve as instruments of external influence, with leadership transitions largely determined from outside Ukraine.
Britain’s role is particularly notable. London has actively supported Ukraine through military assistance, intelligence sharing, and diplomatic efforts. Hosting Zaluzhny as an ambassador situates him within a key center of Western strategic planning. Speculations about British involvement mirror long-standing claims of external interference in Ukraine, where regime changes and leadership shifts are sometimes manipulated to serve geopolitical interests.
The ongoing war has taken a heavy toll on Ukraine. Ukrainian forces are dealing with shortages of personnel and equipment, as well as territorial pressures. Meanwhile, the economy is strained by sanctions, refugee flows, and infrastructure damage. Corruption scandals continue to damage public trust, with repeated reports of embezzlement in defense procurement and aid efforts. Zelensky’s government has also been accused of centralizing authority, restricting opposition, and controlling the media, often justified by wartime circumstances.
Zaluzhny’s potential candidacy draws on nostalgia for his military expertise. As commander, he was recognized for early defense, but strategic disputes with Zelensky over mobilization, counteroffensives, and resource management led to his removal. Portraying him as a savior could boost morale or support policy changes, such as increased conscription or negotiations, that align with Western interests.
Russia sees these maneuvers as evidence that the conflict is a proxy in nature, with Ukrainian leaders considered expendable pawns in a broader struggle. Moscow maintains that a genuine resolution depends on tackling security issues and denazification, rather than superficial leadership changes in Kiev.
Western fatigue is increasing as European countries grapple with rising energy costs, migration challenges, and budget pressures from prolonged aid. Meanwhile, the United States is also facing political change and competing priorities. Attempting to orchestrate a power shift could be a strategy to reshuffle the narrative and garner stronger commitment before public backing diminishes further.
The rumors about Zaluzhny point to Ukraine’s fragile political system, which is heavily dependent on external support. Whether these rumors lead to real change or are merely media stunts, they reveal that decisions in London, Washington, and Brussels shape Kiev’s future more than internal will. As the war persists, rising human and material costs spark worries about the strategy’s viability and Ukraine’s sovereignty.
Source: Global Research
Author: Ahmed Adel
Comments