Jamie Dettmer is opinion editor and a foreign affairs columnist at POLITICO Europe. Ukraine’s poker-faced Kyrylo Budanov, who was the country’s military spy chief until Friday, had an excellent start to the new year. On Dec. 27, Budanov faked the frontline death of Denis Kapustin — the commander of a pro-Ukraine Russian militia — and with that, tricked Russian spooks into handing over half a million dollars in bounty money for the feigned assassination. Then, on Thursday, he openly celebrated the theatrical ruse by posting a video of himself smiling broadly alongside the rebel commander. “I congratulate you, as they say, on your return to life,” chimed the 39-year-old spy chief. And then the next day, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy appointed him chief of staff, as the much-awaited replacement for his longtime aide and friend Andriy Yermak. Yermak, who was virtually operating as a co-president by the end of his tenure, was forced to resign in November, following an anti-corruption raid on his apartment as part of a ballooning graft investigation into Ukraine’s energy sector and presidential insiders. A characteristically stubborn Zelenskyy had initially shunned the calls for Yermak to go, but he heeded them in the end, when even lawmakers from his own party started to rebel. Indeed, Yermak’s departure is a tectonic political shift for Ukraine. But perhaps Budanov allowed himself a private smirk after his new appointment — after all, he’d not only outsmarted the Russians again, but he’d also bested Yermak, who saw him as a rival and had tried to get him fired several times, only to emerge as the second most powerful figure in Ukraine. However, the task at hand is not easy. And in his new role, the popular wartime master spy will need every ounce of the political shrewdness he demonstrated while outfoxing Yermak. Taking over as the head of the presidential office is daunting enough at the best of times. But these are the worst of times — Ukraine is at a critical juncture in a long-running existential war, and Russian President Vladimir Putin shows no sign of wanting this to end. In fact, quite the reverse. Every time a U.S.-brokered deal appears on the table, Putin throws up yet another nyet. Meanwhile, on the battlefield, Ukraine is coming under increasing pressure, as Russia has the tactical upper hand. The battles in the east are highlighting the country’s severe manpower shortage. Ukraine’s port city Odesa is coming under ferocious drone and missile attacks as part of Russia’s bid to throttle the country’s economy by disrupting exports. And on the home front, Russian attacks on the country’s energy infrastructure are of much greater magnitude this year, and Ukraine doesn’t have the air defenses to cope — nor is it likely to get them soon. On top of all of that, Kyiv is also facing an impatient U.S. president, eager for Kyiv to cave to unacceptable Russian demands, which would leave the country vulnerable and likely in political turmoil. So, not only will Budanov have to help his boss avoid falling afoul of a mercurial Donald Trump, who seems sympathetic to Moscow and echoes Kremlin talking points all too often, he’ll also have to assist Zelenskyy in handling Ukraine’s increasingly turbulent partisan politics and bridge a widening gap between the country’s leader and its parliament. Moreover, if Zelenskyy has no choice but to accept an unfavorable peace deal, Budanov will have to help him sell it to Ukrainians. Partisan politics — long a muscular, no-holds-barred sport in Ukraine — came roaring back to life this year, sparked by an ill-judged and ultimately aborted maneuver by Zelenskyy and Yermak to try to strip two key anti-corruption agencies of their independence this summer, just as both were starting to probe presidential insiders. The snow-balling corruption scandal involving the country’s shattered energy sector has only added to public disillusionment and parliamentary frustration. And while Ukrainians will back Zelenskyy to the hilt in his diplomatic jousting with Washington, criticism of his governance has only swelled. “The biggest expectation from this power shift — beyond the ousting of Yermak’s loyalists — is a genuine transformation in governance, particularly in how the authorities engage with their own citizens. For too long, the war has served as a convenient veil for democratic backsliding. Ukrainian society has endured a profound breakdown in trust: a yawning chasm between the government and the people, fueled by human rights violations, widespread disillusionment with the war’s objectives, and rampant corruption,” said former Zelenskyy aide-turned-critic Iuliia Mendel. Andriy Yermak’s departure is a tectonic political shift for Ukraine. | Sergey Dolzhenko/EPA And lucky for Zelenskyy, aside from obvious political savvy, Budanov will take over the presidential office on Kyiv’s Bankova Street armed with the huge advantage of public popularity as well. Budanov’s esteem comes from how he’s been running Zelenskyy’s equivalent of Winston Churchill’s so-called Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare, overseeing successful, morale-boosting Ukrainian commando raids in Russian-occupied Ukraine and in Russia itself. He’s orchestrated dramatic sabotage missions, assassinations and long-range drone attacks on military and energy targets, including one that took out radar systems and a Russian An-26 military transport plane in Crimea last month. And he’s not just a desk jockey either. Budanov is very much a man of action who secretly participates in raids himself, reprising a personal frontline history that saw him fighting in the Donbas immediately after Maidan, as part of an elite commando unit of the Ukrainian military intelligence service. In 2014, he was wounded in the east. Two years later, he led a dramatic amphibious sabotage mission on Russian-occupied Crimea, which involved a nail-biting and violent retreat into Ukrainian-controlled territory. No wonder the Russians are keen to neutralize him — and they have tried. According to his aides, Russian special forces have made several botched attempts on Budanov’s life, including one in 2019, when a bomb affixed to his car exploded prematurely. But how will this buccaneering past translate into a political future? And other than popularity, what does Budanov bring to the table for Zelenskyy? A senior Ukrainian official, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly, anticipates Budanov’s presence will give the beleaguered presidency a lift: “He’s got credibility. He’s got personal stature. He’s unlikely to operate like Yermak, who was a spider casting his web far and wide. Budanov is likely to focus on national security, leaving the ministers unmolested and able to get on with their jobs and not be micromanaged by the center. So, less monopolization of power by the presidency — and that will be no bad thing,” he said. Similarly, Daniel Vajdich, a Republican foreign policy expert and president of the Yorktown Solutions consulting firm that advises Ukrainian state entities, dubbed Budanov’s appointment “a brilliant move on Zelenskyy’s part.” “I think it’s very good that someone who’s widely respected is taking charge of the president’s office in the wake of Yermak. It will be a very positive dynamic for decision-making in Kyiv,” he told POLITICO. It’s true, Yermak was a gift for MAGA’s Ukraine-bashing wing. Whereas Budanov, as a war hero, is less of an easy target, with no links to graft or any obvious self-serving politics. And if he does harbor personal political ambitions, it seems he has put those aside by taking on this new role — at least in the near term. It would be hard for him to run against Zelenskyy in any near-future elections. Plus, if things go wrong in the coming weeks and months, he risks tarnishing his own image and diminishing his electoral appeal.  In fact, there’s some surprise in Ukraine’s parliament that Budanov agreed to take the job. “It’s very confusing,” a Ukrainian lawmaker confided to POLITICO, having been granted anonymity to speak frankly. “He does have his own political ambitions. I am scratching my head to understand why he took the job — politically, it would have been safer for him to stay doing what he was doing.” Overall, the talk in parliament is that Budanov must have received political promises for the future — either over the prime ministership after elections, or Zelenskyy could have indicated he might not seek reelection and that the former spy chief could slot in as the government candidate. But other, possibly less jaundiced, lawmakers told POLITICO that Budanov’s decision to take the job could well speak less to his political calculations and more to his patriotism — country first. Maybe so, but Ukraine analyst Adrian Karatnycky suspects something more complicated is going on: Budanov’s appointment “comes at a time when the parliament is becoming more independent-minded, with lawmakers seeing that Zelenskyy’s political power is diminishing,” he said. The president’s loyalists see that too, and the appointment could be seen as “an attempt by Zelenskyy and his circle as an exercise in finding a possible substitute should they need one — and if polling indicates that Zelenskyy is unelectable.” So, part job, part audition. Either way, the big remaining question is whether Budanov will bridge the growing gap between the presidency and the parliament and civil society — something Yermak didn’t care to do. In other words, will he meet public expectations for a genuine transformation in Ukrainian governance? If he can, that would strengthen Zelenskyy — and ultimately himself.

BERLIN — European leaders welcomed “significant progress” in talks on a potential peace deal on Monday after nearly four years of full-scale war in Ukraine, for the first time outlining how security guarantees could prevent Vladimir Putin from invading again.  Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy gave an upbeat assessment of a dramatic new offer from American officials to provide NATO-style security guarantees to Ukraine. The proposals look “pretty good,” Zelenskyy said at the end of two days of talks with Donald Trump’s negotiators and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in Berlin.  But the Ukraine president cautioned that the plans were only a “first draft,” with major questions remaining unresolved. For example, there was still no deal on what should happen to contested territory in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine, much of which is occupied by Russian troops. And there’s no indication that Russian dictator Vladimir Putin will agree to any of it. Merz, however, welcomed what he called the “remarkable” legal and “material” security guarantees that American negotiators Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, had proposed.  “For the first time since 2022, a ceasefire is conceivable,” Merz said at a press conference with Zelenskyy. “It is now entirely up to Russia whether a ceasefire can be achieved by Christmas.”  The emergence of an outline security guarantee marks a potentially critical step forward in the negotiations. Ukraine has consistently said it cannot consider any solution to the question of what happens to territories occupied by Russian troops until it receives a security package that would deter Putin from invading again.  Putin, meanwhile, has refused to countenance Ukraine joining NATO, and earlier this year Trump said American forces would not have a role in any peacekeeping mission.  However, recent days have seen a steady improvement in the mood among negotiators. “This is a truly far-reaching and substantial agreement, which we have not had before, namely that both Europe and the U.S. are jointly prepared — and President Zelenskyy has referred to Article 5 of the NATO Treaty — to give similar security guarantees to Ukraine,” Merz said. Article 5 is the cornerstone of the alliance’s collective defense: It states that an attack on one member will be treated as an attack on all. “In my view, this is a really big step forward. And, as I said, the American side has also committed itself politically and, in perspective, legally to do this,” Merz added. Zelenskyy also, for the first time, suggested a solution could be in sight. “Before we take any steps on the battlefield, we need to see very clearly what security guarantees are in place,” he said. “It is important that the U.S. is considering Article-5-like guarantees. There is progress there.” In a subsequent joint statement the leaders of Denmark, Finland, France, the U.K., Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Norway joined Merz in welcoming the “significant progress” in the talks. The statement was also signed by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and António Costa, president of the European Council, who joined the national leaders for a dinner discussion with Zelenskyy in Berlin.  Their statement also laid out more detail on what the new peace plan might include, suggesting that “the US” had “committed” alongside European leaders to guarantee the future security of Ukraine and to foster its economic recovery. This, the leaders’ statement said, would include commitments to support Ukraine’s army to maintain a “peacetime” strength of 800,000 to be able to “deter” and “defend.”  Peace would be enforced in part by a European-led “multinational force Ukraine” made up of contributions from willing nations and “supported by the U.S.” This force would secure Ukraine’s skies, support security at sea, and build up the Ukrainian armed forces, “including through operating in Ukraine.” The statement is not clear on exactly what role the U.S. would play in supporting this force.  Separately, the U.S. would be responsible for a mechanism to monitor the ceasefire and provide early warning of any future attack. There would also be a legally binding commitment to take measures to restore peace if Russia attacks again, potentially including “armed force, intelligence and logistical assistance.” Further points in the proposal include joint efforts to reconstruct Ukraine and invest in its future prosperity, and continuing Ukraine’s pathway toward joining the EU.  On the matter of ceding territory, the European leaders said it would be for Zelenskyy to decide —if necessary by consulting the Ukrainian people.  The developments represent significant movement after weeks of stalemate. But there were suggestions from the American side that their offer may be time-limited, as the White House seeks to push the warring sides toward a peace deal by Christmas.  “The basis of that agreement is basically to have really, really strong guarantees, Article 5-like,” a senior U.S. official said. “Those guarantees will not be on the table forever. Those guarantees are on the table right now if there’s a conclusion that’s reached in a good way.” Hans von der Burchard, Victor Jack, Nicholas Vinocur and Eli Stokols contributed reporting.  

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is ready to change the Ukrainian law that bans elections during wartime to demonstrate that antidemocratic accusations against him are baseless and to win clear security guarantees for Kyiv. Pressure is building on Zelenskyy from multiple sides. Kremlin chief Vladimir Putin said he will not sign any peace agreement with Zelenskyy, who he derides as an “illegitimate” president. U.S. President Donald Trump wants a swift end to Russia’s war on Ukraine, and is urging Kyiv to cede territory to Moscow to get a deal done — while criticizing Zelenskyy’s commitment to democracy.  “They’re using war not to hold an election, but, uh, I would think the Ukrainian people would … should have that choice. And maybe Zelenskyy would win. I don’t know who would win. But they haven’t had an election in a long time,” Trump said in an interview with POLITICO’s Dasha Burns for a special episode of The Conversation. “You know, they talk about a democracy, but it gets to a point where it’s not a democracy anymore.” Ukraine was scheduled to hold a presidential vote in 2024. But elections are banned during martial law and active warfare because Kyiv cannot guarantee a free, fair and safe electoral process while Russian missiles rain down, TV channels are censored by the state and more than 20 percent of the country’s territory is occupied. “The issue of elections in Ukraine is a matter for the people of Ukraine, not the people of other states, with all due respect to our partners. I am ready for the elections. I’ve heard that I’m personally holding on to the president’s seat, that I’m clinging to it, and that this is supposedly why the war is not ending — this, frankly, is a completely absurd story,” Zelenskyy told several journalists via a WhatsApp audio message late Tuesday. The powers of the Ukrainian president and parliament, as well as other state bodies, continue until 30 days after the termination of martial law — which was installed on Feb. 24, 2022, as Russian forces poured over the border — according to Ukrainian legislation. Kyiv has already studied different EU models to conduct elections after the war. Zelenskyy said he is ready to amend Ukrainian law and hold elections during wartime — in the next 60-90 days — but he wants the U.S. and Europe to guarantee the election’s security. “I am asking our parliamentarians to prepare legislative proposals enabling changes to the legal framework and to the election law during martial law, and to prepare them for me. I will be back in Ukraine tomorrow; I expect proposals from our partners; I expect proposals from our MPs — and I am ready to go to elections,” Zelenskyy said. To override the legislative block and constitutional limitations, Zelenskyy would need a ceasefire to ensure the security of voters. Putin, for his part, has repeatedly refused to agree to a ceasefire, demanding a peace agreement and territory to stop the war. “If necessary, these articles banning elections are removed by a vote in parliament, a simple majority and two readings,” said Igor Popov, senior expert at the Ukrainian Institute for the Future. Ukrainian parliamentarians would then have to organize refugee voting in Europe and at home, and decide on whether to introduce online voting given the related risk of Russian meddling. An electoral campaign also needs to last at least 90 days. One Ukrainian election expert fears that Trump’s renewed push for Zelenskyy to hold elections is an attempt to remove the legitimate leader — who won a landslide presidential victory in 2019 — who does not want to sign a deal for his country that gives away swathes of territory to Russia. “We see a certain correlation between Donald Trump and the Kremlin’s position that Ukraine needs a new leader,” Olga Ajvazovska, head of the board at the Ukrainian election watchdog OPORA, told POLITICO.   “In the opinion of these two players [U.S. and Russia], it seems that they believe that there should be a new elected president who will sign certain peace documents, and will be ready to accept demands that are unacceptable from the point of view of the constitutional framework of Ukraine, from the point of view of the principles of protecting territorial integrity, sovereignty,” Ajvazovska added. The U.S. president appears focused solely on Ukraine’s presidential election, ignoring that Kyiv also postponed parliamentary elections in 2023 and local elections in 2025. A recent 28-point peace plan, circulated by Trump’s team, demanded that Ukraine hold elections within 100 days of signing a deal — a direct intrusion into its sovereignty. “So, the emphasis is on changing Ukrainian leadership, personified in Zelenskyy. But here you have to read Ukrainian society better. While Trump is quite distant from Ukrainian realities,” Ajvazovska said. Were an election held, those who want Zelenskyy out might be disappointed. While his favorability rating dropped sharply after last month’s blockbuster energy corruption scandal, Zelenskyy is still the most popular politician in Ukraine, with around 20 percent of Ukrainians ready to vote for him again during hypothetical presidential elections, according to the latest poll published by the Info Sapiens social research agency on Tuesday. Zelenskyy’s closest competitor is former Ukrainian army commander Valerii Zaluzhnyi, who currently serves as Kyiv’s ambassador to the U.K. By intervening in domestic politics, Trump risks consolidating Ukrainians around Zelenskyy — despite the issues that voters may have with his leadership. “So, these statements, when they are made in an aggressive form, rather adjust public opinion to a position of not supporting the transfer of power in the interests or at the request of Russia through Washington,” Ajvazovska said.

Andriy Yermak’s exit as President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s all-powerful chief of staff is a tectonic shift for Ukraine that sets the stage for a fierce battle over how the country is governed. Nicknamed the “green cardinal” for wearing the military-inspired outfits his boss popularized, Yermak — a once little-known lawyer and B-movie producer — rose to wield immense influence as Zelenskyy’s top aide and was seen by many as virtually a co-president. Opposition politicians will use his firing over a $100 million corruption scandal to press home their demand for a national unity government in Kyiv, something they’ve urged ever since Russia launched its full-scale invasion nearly four years ago, and Yermak’s exit will embolden those factions. And there can be little doubt that Zelenskyy will miss the steely former attorney. Many Ukrainian commentators cast Yermak as the producer in the ruling duopoly — with the former TV comic-turned-president in the lead role.  Now Zelenskyy will be without his producer as he prepares for fraught negotiations with the U.S. over President Donald Trump’s divisive “peace plan” to end Russia’s war on Ukraine, as winter sets in and Kremlin forces try to push their advantage on the grim battlefields of the Donbas.   That said, Yermak won’t be widely mourned. His monopolization of power had drawn increasing criticism and frustration, both inside Ukraine and from Western allies. Hardly surprisingly, Ukrainian opposition politicians and former officials who had tussled with Yermak welcomed the news of his exit, saying they hoped it would mark a major change in how Zelenskyy rules and a shift away from his tightly controlled style of governing. “I didn’t believe it was possible that he would ever go,” said one former senior Ukrainian official, who asked not to be identified so as “not to be seen as dancing on Yermak’s grave.” Critics of Yermak had also pointed to Zelenskyy’s ultimately aborted moves in the summer to curb the independence of Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies — a step that initially exacerbated fears the government was tightening its grip over institutions meant to check presidential power. For opposition lawmaker Lesia Vasylenko, Yermak’s departure “shows that there’s zero tolerance for corruption and the president listens to the concerns of the people.” Others said his exit comes as a breath of fresh air.  Now Volodymyr Zelenskyy will be without his producer as he prepares for fraught negotiations with the U.S. over President Donald Trump’s divisive “peace plan” to end Russia’s war on Ukraine. | Ihor Kuznietsov/Getty Images But some opposition lawmakers questioned whether Zelenskyy will seize the moment to pursue more inclusive politics. Former Deputy Prime Minister Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze told POLITICO she remains unsure if the drama will change the way Zelenskyy governs. “Exactly that is the question. The way of governing has to go back to the constitution. Parliament has to regain its agency,” she said.  “That means the president has to agree to talk to all factions, we have to review the relationship in the parliament and form a real government of national unity, which will be accountable to the parliament, not the presidential office,” she added.  Iuliia Mendel, a Ukrainian journalist and former Zelenskyy adviser-turned-critic, told POLITICO that Yermak’s resignation was “a desperate reaction to unbearable pressure.” “Zelenskyy has no real replacement ready because he never thought things would go this far. But the heat got so intense that it boiled down to the simplest choice: him or Yermak. And Zelenskyy picked himself,” she added. But Mendel harbors some doubt that things will really change much. “Yermak might just stay the shadow puppeteer,” she warned. 

Jamie Dettmer is opinion editor and a foreign affairs columnist at POLITICO Europe. “These are the times that try men’s souls,” wrote pamphleteer Thomas Paine in the dark days of December 1776, as America’s war to free itself of the British seemed doomed. In a bid to lift flagging spirits, he continued: “Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.” That victory was sorely in doubt for much of the war, but the revolutionaries persevered, and with French assistance — which has often been downplayed since — they triumphed after eight years of brutish conflict. Ukraine’s struggle has been longer. In effect, the country has been fighting to be free of Russia since 2014, and right now, these times are, indeed, trying Ukrainian souls. As it stands, there is scant grounds for optimism that, for all its heroism, Ukraine can turn things around. The country is unlikely to emerge from its most perilous winter of the war in a stronger position, better able to withstand what’s being foisted upon it. In fact, it could be in a much weaker state — on the battlefield, the home front, and in terms of its internal politics. Indeed, as it tries to navigate its way through America’s divisive “peace plan,” this might be the best Ukraine can hope for — or at least some variation that doesn’t entail withdrawing from the territory in eastern Ukraine it has managed to retain. On the battlefield, Ukraine’s forces are currently hard pressed and numerically disadvantaged. Or, as lawmaker Mariana Bezuhla recently argued: “Ukrainian commanders simply can’t keep up” and are “being jerked around within a framework set by the enemy.” Meanwhile, on the home front, pummeling Russian drone attacks and airstrikes are degrading the country’s power system and wrecking its natural gas infrastructure, which keeps 60 percent of Ukrainians warm during the frigid winter months. The country is also running out of money. It’s hard to see a Europe mired in debt providing the $250 billion Kyiv will need in cash and arms to sustain the fight for another four years — and that’s on top of the $140 billion reparations loan that might be offered if Belgium lifts its veto on using Russia’s immobilized assets held in Brussels. If all that weren’t enough, Ukraine is being roiled by a massive corruption scandal that appears to implicate Ukrainian presidential insiders, sapping the confidence of allies and Ukrainians alike. It’s also providing those in the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump and the MAGA movement with ammunition to argue that Washington should be done with Ukraine. And now, of course, Kyiv is having to cope with a contentious U.S. effort to end Russia’s war, which has been advanced in such a chaotic diplomatic process that it wouldn’t be out of place in an episode of “The West Wing.” At times, negotiations have descended into farce, with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio forswearing the original peace plan one minute, saying it came from Russia and not a Trump administration proposal, only to swiftly backtrack. And earlier this week, a Reuters report suggested the 28-point plan was, in fact, modeled on a Russian proposal that Kremlin officials shared with their U.S. counterparts in mid-October. Meanwhile, on the home front, pummeling Russian drone attacks and airstrikes are degrading the country’s power system and wrecking its natural gas infrastructure. | Mykola Tys/EPA But for all the buffoonery — including reports that Special Envoy Steve Witkoff coached high-ranking Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov on how Russian President Vladimir Putin should speak to Trump — a tweaked 19-point version of the “peace plan” may well be the best Ukraine can realistically expect, even though it heavily favors Russia. As this column has argued before, a Ukrainian triumph was always unlikely — that is if by triumph one means the restoration of the country’s 1991 borders and NATO membership. This isn’t through any fault of Ukraine, the David in the fight against Goliath, but rather that of Kyiv’s Western allies, who were never clear-sighted or practical in their thinking, let alone ready to do what was necessary to defeat Russia’s revanchism and vanquish a Putin regime heedless of the death toll of even its own troops. Despite their high-blown rhetoric, at no stage in the conflict have Ukraine’s allies agreed on any clear war aims. Some pressed for a debate, among them former Lithuanian foreign minister Gabrielius Landsbergis, who was worried about a mismatch between Western magniloquence and what the U.S. and Europe were actually prepared to do and give. “We talk about victory, and we talk about standing with Ukraine to the very end — but let’s also talk about this,” he told POLITICO in a 2023 interview. But that debate never happened because of fears it would disunite allies. Nonetheless, Western leaders continued to characterize the war as a contest between good and evil, with huge stakes for democracy. They cast it as a struggle not only for territory but between liberal and autocratic values, and as one with global consequences. But in that case, why be restrained in what you supply? Why hold back on long-range munitions and tanks? Why delay supplying F-16s? And why prevent Ukraine from using Western-supplied long-range missiles to strike deeper into Russia? Or, as Ukraine’s former top commander Gen. Valery Zaluzhny fumed in the Washington Post: “To save my people, why do I have to ask someone for permission what to do on enemy territory?” For former Ukrainian foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba, for all its talk of standing with Ukraine for as long as it takes, the West never really grasped the war’s importance or consequences: “You cannot win a war where Russia clearly knows what its strategic goal is in every detail; [where] Ukraine knows what its strategic goal is in every detail; but [where] the West, without whom Ukraine cannot win, does not know what it is fighting for,” he told POLITICO last year. “This is the real tragedy of this war.” At times, negotiations have descended into farce, with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio forswearing the original peace plan one minute, saying it came from Russia and not a Trump administration proposal, only to swiftly backtrack. | Martial Trezzini/EPA The currently discussed 19-point plan is, of course, an improvement on the original 28-point plan — nonetheless, it is an ugly and shameful one. But this is what happens if you run down your military forces and arms production for decades, fail to draw enforceable red lines and don’t ask hard questions before making grand promises. For Ukraine, such a poor deal that leaves it with weak security guarantees, without 20 percent of its territory and prohibits it from joining NATO, will have great domestic consequences and carry the high likelihood of civil strife. It isn’t hard to see how the army and its veterans might react. Many of them will see it as a stab in the back, an enraging betrayal that needs to be punished. It will also mean rewarding Putin’s thuggishness and no real accountability for the bestial nature of his army’s atrocious behavior or the unlawful, detestable deportations from occupied parts of Ukraine to Russia. And it will, no doubt, embolden the axis of autocrats. The American Revolution had lasting global consequences — so, too, will this war.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy is under mounting pressure from critics to keep the lights and heating on while Vladimir Putin ramps up his military assault on Ukraine’s energy supply. The Ukrainian president is fearful of a public backlash over likely prolonged blackouts this winter and is trying to shift the blame, said the former head of Ukraine’s state-owned national power company. Thirty-nine-year-old Volodymyr Kudrytskyi, who led Ukrenergo until he was forced to resign last year amid infighting over political control of the energy sector, said he’s one of those whom the President’s Office is looking to scapegoat. During an exclusive interview with POLITICO, he predicted Ukraine will face a “very difficult winter” under relentless Russian bombardment — and argued Kyiv’s government has made that worse through a series of missteps. Adding fuel to his clash with Zelenskyy’s team, Kudrytskyi was charged last week with embezzlement, prompting an outcry from Ukraine’s civil society and opposition lawmakers.  They say Kudrytskyi’s arraignment involving a contract — one of hundreds — he authorized seven years ago, when he was a deputy director at Ukrenergo, is a glaring example of the aggressive use of lawfare by the Ukrainian leadership to intimidate opponents, silence critics and obscure their own mistakes. Kudrytskyi added he has no doubt that the charges against him would have to be approved by the President’s Office and “could only have been orchestrated on the orders of Zelenskyy.” Zelenskyy’s office declined to respond to repeated requests from POLITICO for comment. Before his arrest, Kudrytskyi said he was the subject of criticism “by anonymous Telegram channels that support the presidential office with false claims I had embezzled funds.” He took that as the first sign that he would likely be targeted for harsher treatment. Kudrytskyi, who was released Friday on bail, said the criminal charges against him are “nonsense,” but they’ve been leveled so it will be “easier for the President’s Office to sell the idea that I am responsible for the failure to prepare the energy system for the upcoming winter, despite the fact that I have not been at Ukrenergo for more than a year now.” “They’re scared to death” about a public outcry this winter, he added. COMPETING PLANS That public backlash against leadership in Kyiv will be partly justified, Kudrytskyi said, because the struggle to keep the lights on will have been exacerbated by tardiness in rolling out more decentralized power generation. Kudrytskyi said Ukraine’s energy challenge as the days turn colder will be compounded by the government’s failure to promptly act on a plan he presented to Zelenskyy three years ago. The proposal would have decentralized energy generation and shifted away, as quickly as possible, from a system based on huge Soviet-era centralized power plants, more inviting targets for Russian attacks.   Thirty-nine-year-old Volodymyr Kudrytskyi said he’s one of those whom the President’s Office is looking to scapegoat. | Kirill Chubotin/Getty Images The plan was centered on the idea that decentralizing power generation would be the best way to withstand Russian missile and drone attacks. Those have redoubled to an alarming scale in recent weeks with, some days, Russia targeting Ukraine’s energy infrastructure with 500 Iranian-designed drones and 20 to 30 missiles in each attack. Instead of quickly endorsing the decentralization plan, Zelenskyy instead approved — according to Kudrytskyi — a rival scheme backed by his powerful Chief of Staff Andriy Yermak to “create a huge fund to attract hundreds of millions of foreign investment for hydrogen and solar energy.” Last year the government shifted its focus to decentralization, eventually taking up Kudrytskyi’s plan. “But we lost a year,” he said.  He also said the slow pace in hardening the country’s energy facilities to better withstand the impact of direct hits or blasts — including building concrete shelters to protect transformers at power plants — was a “sensational failure of the government.” Ukrenergo, Kudrytskyi said, started to harden facilities and construct concrete shelters for transformers in 2023 — but little work was done by other power generation companies. DEMOCRATIC BACKSLIDING Kudrytskyi was abruptly forced to resign last year in what several Ukrainian energy executives say was a maneuver engineered by presidential insiders determined to monopolize political power. His departure prompted alarm in Brussels and Washington, D.C. — Western diplomats and global lenders even issued a rare public rebuke, breaking their normal public silence on domestic Ukrainian politics. They exhorted Kyiv to change tack. So far, international partners have made no public comments on Kudrytskyi’s arrest and arraignment. But a group of four prominent Ukrainian think tanks issued a joint statement on Oct. 30, the day after Kudrytskyi’s arraignment, urging authorities to conduct investigations with “the utmost impartiality, objectivity, and political neutrality.”  The think tanks also cautioned against conducting political persecutions. In their statement they said: “The practice of politically motivated actions against professionals in power in any country, especially in a country experiencing the extremely difficult times of war, is a blow to statehood, not a manifestation of justice.” The embezzlement case against Kudrytskyi has been described by one of the country’s most prominent anti-corruption activists, Daria Kaleniuk, head of the Anti-Corruption Action Center, as not making any legal sense. She argued that the prosecutor has failed to offer evidence that the former energy boss enriched himself in any way and, along with other civil society leaders, said the case is another episode in democratic backsliding. Overnight Sunday, Russia launched more attacks targeting Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, striking at regions across the country. According to Zelenskyy, “nearly 1,500 attack drones, 1,170 guided aerial bombs, and more than 70 missiles of different types were used by the Russians to attack life in Ukraine just this week alone.” Unlike previous wartime winters, Russian forces this time have also been attacking the country’s natural gas infrastructure in a sustained campaign.  Since being forced to resign from Ukrenergo, Kudrytskyi hasn’t been shy about highlighting what he says is mismanagement of Ukraine’s energy sector. For that he has been attacked on social media for being unpatriotic, he said. But he sees it differently. “Most Ukrainians understand the government should be criticized even during wartime for mistakes because otherwise it would cause harm to the country,” he said.

Jamie Dettmer is opinion editor and a foreign affairs columnist at POLITICO Europe. As Russia began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine nearly four years ago, Volodymyr Kudrytskyi, then head of Ukraine’s state-owned national power company Ukrenergo, was scrambling to keep the lights on. Somehow, he succeeded and continued to do so every year, earning the respect of energy executives worldwide by ensuring the country was able to withstand Russian missile and drone strikes on its power grid and avoid catastrophic blackouts — until he was abruptly forced to resign in 2024, that is. Kudrytskyi’s dismissal was decried by many in the energy industry and also prompted alarm in Brussels. At the time, Kudrytskyi told POLITICO he was the victim of the relentless centralization of authority that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his powerful head of office Andriy Yermak often pursue. He said he feared “corrupt individuals” would end up taking over the state-owned company. According to his supporters, it is that kind of talk — and his refusal to remain silent — that explains why Kudrytskyi ended up in a glass-enclosed cubicle in a downtown Kyiv courtroom last week, where he was arraigned on embezzlement charges. Now, opposition lawmakers and civil society activists are up in arms, labeling this yet another example of Ukraine’s leadership using lawfare to intimidate opponents and silence critics by accusing them of corruption or of collaboration with Russia. Zelenskyy’s office declined to comment. Others who have received the same treatment include Zelenskyy’s predecessor in office, Petro Poroshenko, who was sanctioned and arraigned on corruption charges this year — a move that could prevent him from standing in a future election. Sanctions have frequently been threatened or used against opponents, effectively freezing assets and blocking the sanctioned person from conducting any financial transactions, including using credit cards or accessing bank accounts. Poroshenko has since accused Zelenskyy of creeping “authoritarianism,” and seeking to “remove any competitor from the political landscape.” That may also explain why Kudrytskyi has been arraigned, according to opposition lawmaker Mykola Knyazhitskiy, who believes the use of lawfare to discredit opponents is only going to get worse as the presidential office prepares for a possible election next year in the event there’s a ceasefire. They are using the courts “to clear the field of competitors” to shape a dishonest election, he fears. Others, including prominent Ukrainian activist and head of the Anti-Corruption Action Center Daria Kaleniuk, argue the president and his coterie are using the war to monopolize power to such a degree that it threatens the country’s democracy. Kaleniuk was in the courtroom for Kudrytskyi’s two-hour arraignment, and echoes the former energy boss’s claim that the prosecution is “political.” According to Kaleniuk, the case doesn’t make any legal sense, and she said it all sounded “even stranger” as the prosecutor detailed the charges against Kudrytskyi: “He failed to show that he had materially benefited in any way” from an infrastructure contract that, in the end, wasn’t completed, she explained. The case in question is related to a contract Kudrytskyi authorized seven years ago as Ukrenergo’s then-deputy director for investments. But the subcontractor didn’t even begin work on the assigned infrastructure improvements, and Ukrenergo was able to claw back an advance payment that was made. Kaleniuk’s disquiet is also echoed by opposition lawmaker Inna Sovsun, who told POLITICO, “there’s no evidence that [Kudrytskyi] enriched himself.” “There was no damage done. I can’t help but think that this is all politically motivated,” she said. Sovsun turned up to the arraignment to offer herself as a bail guarantor if needed — two other lawmakers offered to act as guarantors as well, but the judge instead decided on another procedure to set Kudrytskyi free from pre-trial detention by requiring the payment of bail bond of $325,000.   One senior Ukrainian adviser, who asked not to be identified so they could speak about the case, dismissed the defense’s description of the case against Kudrytskyi as being politically motivated and claiming there was no substance to the embezzlement allegations. “People should wait on this case until the full hearing,” he added. But for former Deputy Prime Minister Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, the case “doesn’t look good from any angle — either domestically or when it comes to international partners.” The timing, she said, is unhelpful for Ukraine, as it coincides with Kyiv’s ongoing appeal for more European energy assistance ahead of what’s likely to be the war’s most perilous winter. With Russia mounting missile and drone strikes on a far larger scale than before, Ukraine’s energy challenge is likely to be even more formidable. And unlike previous winters, Russia’s attacks have been targeting Ukraine’s drilling, storage and distribution facilities for natural gas in addition to its electrical power grid. Sixty percent of Ukrainians currently rely on natural gas to keep their homes warm. Some Ukrainian energy executives also fear Kudrytskyi’s prosecution may be part of a preemptive scapegoating tactic to shift blame in the event that the country’s energy system can no longer withstand Russian attacks. Citing unnamed sources, two weeks ago Ukrainian media outlet Ukrainska Pravda reported that former energy executives fear they are being lined up to be faulted for failing to do enough to boost the energy infrastructure’s resilience and harden facilities. “They need a scapegoat now,” a foreign policy expert who has counseled the Ukrainian government told POLITICO. “There are parts of Ukraine that probably won’t have any electricity until the spring. It’s already 10 degrees Celsius in Kyiv apartments now, and the city could well have extended blackouts. People are already pissed off about this, so the president’s office needs scapegoats,” he said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the matter freely. “The opposition is going to accuse Zelenskyy of failing Ukraine, and argue he should have already had contingencies to prevent prolonged blackouts or a big freeze, they will argue,” he added. Senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and author of “Battleground Ukraine” Adrian Karatnycky also worries about the direction of political travel. “While he’s an inspirational and brave wartime leader, there are, indeed, worrying elements to Zelenskyy’s rule,” he said.

BERLIN — Politicians in Germany and Poland — home to the biggest Ukrainian refugee populations within the European Union — are threatening to yank back the welcome mat amid a sharp increase in the number of young Ukrainian men entering their countries in recent weeks after Kyiv loosened exit rules. While sentiment within both countries is generally favorable toward Ukrainians, their growing presence is increasingly becoming a flashpoint wielded by far-right parties. With Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine going into its fourth winter, the debate is expected to intensify as millions risk being left without heating, water or electricity in the coming months due to ongoing attacks by the Kremlin. In Germany, members of Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s governing conservatives are warning that while the country will continue taking in Ukrainian refugees, public support for the Ukrainian cause could wane if young male emigrants are seen to be avoiding military service. “We have no interest in young Ukrainian men spending their time in Germany instead of defending their country,” Jürgen Hardt, a senior foreign policy lawmaker from Merz’s conservatives, told POLITICO on Tuesday. “Ukraine makes its own decisions, but the recent change in the law has led to a trend of emigration that we must address.” Poland’s far-right Confederation party went further, saying in a statement: “Poland cannot continue to be a refuge for thousands of men who should be defending their own country, while burdening Polish taxpayers with the costs of their desertion.”  Ukrainian arrivals in both countries have increased significantly following the relaxation of Ukrainian exit rules over the summer — a move that ironically was intended to alleviate military recruitment issues by making it easier for young men to come and go. Nearly 45,300 Ukrainian men between 18 and 22 years of age crossed the border to Poland from the beginning of 2025 until the loosening of exit restrictions at the end of August, according to numbers the Polish border guard sent to POLITICO. In the next two months that number soared to 98,500, or 1,600 per day.   And many of the newcomers appear to have kept moving west: The number of young Ukrainian men aged 18 to 22 entering Germany rose from 19 per week in mid-August to between 1,400 and 1,800 per week in October, according to German media reports citing numbers from the German interior ministry.   NEW RULES Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy loosened the exit rules for men who aren’t yet eligible for military service, which begins at 25, at the end of August. Previously, men between the ages of 18 and 60 weren’t allowed to leave the country; under the new regulations, men aged between 18 and 22 can leave and return without risking prosecution.      The change meant that young Ukrainian men already abroad were able to return without fearing they wouldn’t be allowed to leave again. The hope was they might remain and agree to be drafted when they turned 25.     A second reason was to discourage parents from moving their sons abroad at the age of 16 or 17 — a trend authorities have flagged. Announcing the rule change in the summer, Zelenskyy argued: “If we want to keep boys in Ukraine, we really need them to finish school here first and for their parents not to take them away.” He said he feared they could otherwise “lose their connection with Ukraine.”    DEBATE OVER SOCIAL BENEFITS Germany and Poland host the most Ukrainian refugees within the European Union by far. About 1.2 million people who fled Ukraine after Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022 live in Germany and nearly one million in Poland — over half of all Ukrainians with protected status in the bloc, according to Eurostat data. Although Ukrainians account for over 6 percent of the Polish workforce and contribute significantly to economic growth, far-right politicians argue they’re getting too many social benefits. Nationalist President Karol Nawrocki recently vetoed legislation on helping Ukrainians, saying only those who work and pay taxes in Poland should get benefits.   Similar demands have repeatedly been made by the ascendant far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party in Germany, which is now polling in first place. Along with demanding a stop to welfare payments to Ukrainians, the party is known for its skepticism toward military aid for Ukraine — at a time when Germany is Kyiv’s largest donor after the U.S. Friedrich Merz’s coalition is working on a draft law that would deny the right to such benefits. | Magali Cohen and Hans Lucas/Getty Images Around 490,000 Ukrainian citizens of working age receive long-term unemployment benefits in Germany, according to data from the country’s employment agency. Merz’s coalition — which is under increasing budgetary pressure and generally wants to reduce welfare spending — is working on a draft law that would deny the right to such benefits. “Many people have mixed feelings about how we should deal with young Ukrainian men of military age who have fled to us and may be receiving social benefits. That is understandable,” Sebastian Fiedler, a lawmaker from the Social Democratic Party (SPD), which governs in a coalition with Merz’s conservatives, told POLITICO.   But Fiedler, who heads the SPD group in the interior committee, added that his faction doesn’t see a need to act immediately — unlike Merz’s conservatives.   “The SPD parliamentary group in the Bundestag remains committed to supporting Ukraine to the best of our ability,” he said. “Part of our dealings with Ukraine also means that we do not dictate to it when its own citizens can enter and leave the country. It is fundamentally not Germany’s job to decide which young people Ukraine sends to war and which it does not.”  WAIT AND SEE Others in Germany’s political leadership want to wait to see if arrivals numbers remain high before making any changes. Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt, a member of the conservatives, said through a spokesperson that he wanted more data. “Currently, the possibility is being considered that this is an initial phase of increased migration following the entry into force of the regulation adopted by Ukraine in the summer, and that the number of young men seeking protection may decline again,” the spokesperson said.  The ongoing debate in Germany was initiated by Bavarian Prime Minister Markus Söder, leader of the Bavarian Christian Social Union (CSU), which the interior minister belongs to. Söder proposed to restrict the so-called Temporary Protection Directive at the EU level if Kyiv doesn’t voluntarily reduce arrivals. The rules provide Ukrainians who entered the bloc after February 2022 with an automatic protected status.    “Our solidarity remains,” he said. “But it requires clear rules and responsibility on both sides.”    Miłka Fijałkowska contributed to this report from Berlin, Wojciech Kość contributed from Warsaw.

Ukraine’s former President Viktor Yanukovych on Wednesday lost his decade-long court fight to lift sanctions imposed on him by the EU. Yanukovych was the pro-Russian president of Ukraine from 2010 to 2014 before he was overthrown by the Euromaidan protests and fled to Russia. He was first sanctioned by the bloc in 2014 — when it barred him from traveling to the EU and froze his assets — and again in 2022 after Moscow’s full-scale invasion. Yanukovych had asked the EU’s highest court to scrap the measures against him on the grounds that the bloc brought sanctions when — in his view — he faced no criminal case in Ukraine and that it had “no concrete evidence.” But on Wednesday the General Court, part of the Court of Justice of the European Union, dismissed his action in a judgment excoriating his tenure as Ukraine’s president. Yanukovych’s actions as Ukraine’s head of state “clearly contributed to the destabilisation” of the country and the EU was right to include him on its sanctions list according to its legal criteria, the court said in its 18-page judgment. The court also noted the former strongman’s failure “to distance himself effectively from the Russian authorities” since his presidency and singled out his “involvement in a plan” to oust Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in March 2022. Yanukovych’s son, Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych, was also sanctioned by the EU over his far-reaching business dealings in the Russian-occupied Donbas region. On Wednesday the court dismissed his parallel appeal to have those sanctions lifted as well. As president of Ukraine, Yanukovych pulled the country out of an association agreement with the EU, plundered state coffers and courted closer ties with the Kremlin, triggering widespread civil unrest. After calling on Russian President Vladimir Putin to send troops into the country to restore order, and after bloody confrontations between his security forces and pro-democracy protesters that killed more than 100 of his citizens, Yanukovych fled to Russia in early 2014, where he has lived in exile ever since.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy urged to increase pressure on Russia as Moscow ramped up attacks on Ukraine overnight amid global efforts to stop the devastating war. “Last night, the Russian army set one of its insane anti-records. They targeted civilian infrastructure facilities, residential buildings, and our people,” Zelenskyy said Thursday in a post on X. Russia launched 574 strike drones and 40 missiles against Ukraine on Wednesday night, killing at least one person and injuring 18, Ukrainian authorities said. Moscow targeted cities far from the front line, including Mukachevo, Lviv and Lutsk, with damage reported in other cities including the capital of Kyiv. One of the missile attacks reportedly hit an American electronics manufacturer site in Mukachevo, which has around 800 people on its night shift, an employee of the company told The Kyiv Independent. “It was a regular civilian business, supported by American investment, producing everyday items like coffee machines. And yet, it was also a target for the Russians. This is very telling,” Zelenskyy said in his social media post. “The Russians carried out this attack as if nothing has changed at all, as if there are no global efforts to stop this war. This requires a response. There is still no signal from Moscow that they truly intend to engage in substantive negotiations and end this war. Pressure is needed. Strong sanctions, strong tariffs,” added Zelenskyy. > Last night, the Russian army set one of its insane anti-records. They targeted > civilian infrastructure facilities, residential buildings, and our people. > > Several cruise missiles were lobbed against an American-owned enterprise in > Zakarpattia. It was a regular civilian business,… pic.twitter.com/CQLSQls4Oq > > — Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) August 21, 2025 The massive attack comes after a week of intensified peace efforts by U.S. President Donald Trump and European leaders. Despite the diplomatic exertions, including Trump’s Alaska summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin last Friday, an actual ceasefire, let alone peace, seems a distant prospect. The Kremlin chief hasn’t backed down from his maximalist demands to end the Russian invasion: for Ukraine to become a neutral state, give up additional land in the eastern part of the country, drastically reduce its military, and abandon its aspiration to join NATO. Putin has also not confirmed direct talks with Zelenskyy, which Trump said he began arranging. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Wednesday made clear that Moscow is not shifting on what if considers acceptable security guarantees for Ukraine, which is that both Russia and China will have a say, an unthinkable scenario for Ukraine and its allies. Ukraine sees as an ultimate security guarantee against another Russian attack membership in NATO and the EU, which Moscow opposes. Trump personally told Zelenskyy and European leaders during their Monday meeting in Washington that Kyiv will have “Article 5-like” NATO protections, but omitted any specifics. He insisted there would be no U.S. troops on the ground in Ukraine and the protection would be largely provided by European allies. U.S. Vice President JD Vance doubled downed on that claim on Wednesday when he said that European governments will have to pay “a lion’s share” of costs for Ukraine’s security guarantees. “No matter what form this takes, the Europeans are going to have to take the lion’s share of the burden. It’s their continent, its their security, and the president has been very clear — they are going to have to step up here,” said Vance in an interview with Fox News.