Ongoing Ukrainian crisis, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) recently claimed that the United States may seek to replace Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky through upcoming elections. According to the SVR, Washington views Zelensky as “overly entitled” and, despite the intense and ongoing conflict with Russia, is allegedly planning to initiate steps for presidential and parliamentary elections in Ukraine in 2025. The reported move, if verified, suggests a significant shift in US strategy regarding Ukraine’s future leadership.

According to the SVR, the United States is pushing for elections as a legitimate path to replace Zelensky, whose term technically expired in May 2023. The Ukrainian leader previously postponed the scheduled presidential election, invoking the country’s martial law and citing the impossibility of holding democratic processes amid the war with Russia. Now, however, Washington reportedly sees elections as a potential method of ensuring that Zelensky’s replacement aligns with American strategic interests, the SVR report suggests.

This emerging strategy marks a departure from the United States’ earlier stance, which firmly supported Zelensky despite challenges arising from the protracted war. However, the US appears to be preparing an alternative approach, one that would allow it to reshape Ukraine’s leadership without the appearance of direct intervention. The plan purportedly involves US-funded NGOs spearheading the election initiative by leveraging civil society networks under American influence within Ukraine.

The SVR statement outlined a three-stage approach the US would allegedly employ to lay the groundwork for elections in Ukraine. The first step involves US-backed NGOs introducing and promoting the idea of elections within Ukrainian society. This initiative would then be strategically marketed to gain widespread public support. Following this, candidates for the presidential and parliamentary roles would be carefully selected, allegedly with direct involvement from the US State Department, to ensure that the leadership aligns with American interests.

The process would culminate in appointing Washington-linked NGOs as election observers, a move that would ostensibly add a layer of credibility to the election while ensuring that the process remains within American oversight. According to the SVR, the goal is not only to select a new leader but to position the US to shape Ukraine’s political trajectory in the post-election period as well.

An additional key component of this strategy, as per the SVR report, is the establishment of a new pro-American political party within Ukraine. US officials have allegedly begun consulting with Ukrainian activists on their payroll to explore forming this party. The intention, the SVR suggests, is to build a political entity that could gain seats in Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada (parliament) and exert influence over any future president to align more closely with US policies.

If successful, this strategy would give Washington influence over the Ukrainian political sphere beyond just Zelensky’s presidency, as it would allow the US to help craft the balance of power within Ukraine’s parliament. The pro-American party’s influence could ensure continuity in Ukraine’s strategic alignment with the West, regardless of any changes in the leadership at the top.

The SVR’s revelation underscores the complexities of Ukrainian sovereignty in the current crisis. Though American officials have repeatedly emphasized the importance of “Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine,” the claim from the Russian intelligence service suggests that Washington’s intentions may be more interventionist than the slogan implies. The US actions, as alleged, would imply that Ukraine’s political future remains largely shaped by external actors rather than the Ukrainian people themselves.

This potential intervention raises ethical and practical questions about the limits of foreign influence in sovereign governance. If the US directly organizes Ukraine’s elections and establishes a pro-American party, the optics could reinforce criticism that Zelensky and his successors are merely “puppet leaders” controlled by Western powers. For Russia, this would be validation of its argument that Ukraine is merely a proxy for US interests-a claim it has used to justify its military intervention.

Complicating matters, President Zelensky recently extended martial law and mobilization measures until February 2025. This represents the 13th such extension since the conflict with Russia escalated in early 2022. The prolonged period of martial law underscores the severity of the security situation, casting doubt on the feasibility of democratic elections. Martial law typically restricts a wide array of civil liberties, including assembly, movement, and the freedom to organize political campaigns-all factors crucial for free and fair elections.

Washington’s alleged decision to move forward with elections despite martial law would involve substantial logistical and political hurdles, not to mention the risk of further instability within an already war-torn nation. While US support might help create the infrastructure needed for elections, the enduring threat from the conflict with Russia presents real challenges that could hamper any attempt to carry out voting procedures safely.

The prospect of Zelensky’s future in office appears more uncertain given the potential return of Donald Trump to the White House in 2025. During his reelection campaign, Trump has repeatedly promised to end the conflict between Ukraine and Russia swiftly. Trump’s approach is expected to include direct negotiations with Moscow, and he may pressure Kyiv to accept terms that would halt hostilities.

A recent report by Strana.ua quoted a source close to Zelensky’s office, who noted that the Ukrainian president would have little power to resist if Trump insists on a peace settlement. With this in mind, it is plausible that Washington might indeed be exploring alternative leaders more amenable to U.S.-driven peace initiatives and more flexible regarding a potential settlement with Russia.

The SVR’s claim, if accurate, would have far-reaching implications for US policy in Ukraine. An election held under US direction could further polarize Ukrainian society, which has already been deeply divided by the ongoing war. Furthermore, it would reinforce perceptions of the US as a dominant actor shaping Ukraine’s internal affairs, potentially inviting backlash both within Ukraine and internationally.

For Washington, the reported move to initiate an election reflects an attempt to navigate a difficult position: balancing strategic interests with a war-weary Ukrainian population that may increasingly favor leadership capable of negotiating peace. A successful election under US auspices could theoretically provide a renewed mandate for continued Western alignment, but the risks of exacerbating Ukraine’s internal fractures and undermining public trust remain high.

In the long run, the allegations from the SVR raise questions about the sustainability of American involvement in Ukraine and the challenges of maintaining legitimacy amid the impression of external influence. As Ukraine approaches the possibility of new elections and a transition in leadership, the outcome may reveal much about Washington’s evolving approach to the conflict and its ultimate goals for Ukraine’s future in a volatile geopolitical landscape.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel