Can Volodymyr Zelenskyy recover from his self-made crisis?

Volodymyr Zelenskyy—once a symbol of Ukrainian resilience and global wartime leadership—now confronts a serious domestic crisis largely of his own making. With anti-corruption institutions under threat, public demonstrations underway, and mounting international concern, his ability to rebound hinges on restoring institutional trust, honoring democratic norms, and maintaining support amid Russia’s intensifying war.

Since 2019, Zelenskyy’s path has been shaped by two separate political trajectories. Elected with pledges to eliminate corruption and overhaul the entrenched political elite, he encountered early setbacks as progress slowed. His approval ratings fell significantly during 2021 due to halted reforms and an ambiguous leadership course. Detractors contended he had promised more than he could achieve.

Then came the 2022 Russian invasion—a watershed moment during which Zelenskyy transformed into a wartime leader. His refusal to flee Kyiv, daily public addresses, and deft use of international media turned him into a global figure, rallying Western support and national unity. This period forged a new political consensus around him—a coalition forged in crisis, not routine politics.

Yet as wartime unity solidified his position, structural weaknesses resurfaced beneath the veneer of solidarity. Recently, legislation placing Ukraine’s two main anti-corruption bodies under executive control triggered the largest domestic backlash since the war’s start. Tens of thousands protested nationwide, while EU officials, Western allies, and even Ukrainian service members voiced alarm.

Under stress, Zelenskyy changed direction and introduced new laws to reinstate autonomy to these agencies. Nevertheless, his standing remains damaged. Detractors now wonder if he leans towards authoritarianism, thereby weakening the democratic principles he promised to maintain.

First, restating the need for transparent governance. To restore trust, Zelenskyy should execute commitments to shield NABU and SAPO from any political meddling. Well-defined, actionable reforms supported by all parties involved—Europe’s bodies included—would not undo the error but would indicate a renewed sense of responsibility.

Second, encouraging the public to participate constructively. Going back to decision-making that involves consultation, alongside evident legislative scrutiny and open public discussions, can start to rebuild trust. Demonstrators throughout Kyiv, Lviv, Odesa, and further afield symbolize a nationwide call to protect the advancements achieved since the Maidan revolution—a call that cannot be disregarded.

Third, balancing the immediate needs of wartime with democratic principles. In periods of conflict, implementing martial law and centralized control might appear essential, yet sustaining such measures over an extended duration challenges their legitimacy. Zelenskyy needs to outline a schedule for reestablishing complete democratic standards—particularly elections—as the military and security landscape develops.

Fourth, delivering tangible governance gains. Corruption scandals, economic challenges, and administrative missteps have eroded public confidence. Zelenskyy must accelerate reforms—from anti-oligarch measures to public service efficiency—to demonstrate real progress beyond wartime symbolism.

Political analysts suggest that Zelenskyy may still retain enough support to weather the storm—especially compared against opposition figures lacking his wartime stature. Public polling indicates he remains more trusted than most rivals, though not overwhelmingly so. If elections were held now, some believe he’d perform poorly in a head-to-head against leaders like former commander-in-chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi.

Alternatively, stepping aside voluntarily after a single term could preserve his legacy as the leader who united the country during its darkest hours.

What dangers are there? If he pauses, postpones needed institutional changes, controls dissent, or indefinitely defers elections, he may risk losing support from both local civil groups and international partners. The potential for EU membership, assistance from the West, and Ukraine’s credibility depend on meeting democratic standards.

At the same time, surrendering authority too quickly or appearing fractured could destabilize wartime coordination. Striking the right balance between strong leadership and accountable rule is his most delicate challenge.

Can Zelenskyy engineer a comeback? The window remains narrow but open. Restoration of anti-corruption institutions, economic stabilization, and clarity of leadership intentions may allow him to re-center the narrative. In doing so, he must shift from ideological populism toward pragmatic diplomacy and reform.

As Ukraine confronts an intensifying Russian offensive, weak points at home could become strategic vulnerabilities. Solid governance reinforces both internal stability and international confidence.

Whether Zelenskyy regains his stature depends on his readiness to rectify errors, allow institutional examination, and reinforce Ukraine’s democratic character. If he succeeds, he might be remembered as the leader during conflict who also respected democratic values. If unsuccessful, the past shortcomings will resurface—viewed as a continuation of Ukraine’s ongoing battle with sistema instead of a fresh start.

The next months will test whether Zelenskyy can transcend this crisis not just as a wartime leader, but as a statesman committed to democratic renewal in both war and peace.