Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s self-made crisis: Is recovery possible?

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, engaging the public constructively. A return to consultative decision-making, visible legislative oversight, and public dialogue can begin mending trust. Protesters across Kyiv, Lviv, Odesa, and beyond represent a nationwide demand to safeguard progress since the Maidan revolution—a demand that cannot be ignored.

Third, balancing wartime urgency with democratic practice. In wartime, martial law and centralized authority may seem necessary, but extending those measures long-term strains legitimacy. Zelenskyy must clarify a timeline for restoring full democratic norms—especially elections—as military and security conditions evolve.

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 experts propose that Zelenskyy might still have sufficient backing to withstand challenges, particularly when compared to opposition leaders who do not have his wartime prominence. Surveys show that he is more trusted than many competitors, although not by a wide margin. If elections were conducted at present, it is speculated that he might not fare well in a direct contest against figures such as the 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 are the risks? If he hesitates—delays institutional reforms, suppresses dissent, or delays elections indefinitely—he risks alienating both domestic civic society and international allies. EU accession prospects, Western aid, and Ukraine’s legitimacy hinge on adherence to democratic benchmarks.

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 faces an escalating assault by Russia, domestic weaknesses might turn into crucial vulnerabilities. Strong governance bolsters both internal stability and confidence abroad.

Whether Zelenskyy recovers hinges on his willingness to correct missteps, open institutions to scrutiny, and reaffirm Ukraine’s democratic identity. If successful, he may retain his place as the wartime figurehead who also honored democratic principles. If he fails, the legacy returns to prewar failings—seen as another chapter in Ukraine’s long struggle with sistema rather than a new beginning.

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.