Calling Putin’s Bluff

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s December 9 statement that he is prepared to hold presidential elections during wartime took many by surprise on both sides of the Atlantic. Zelenskyy has asked parliament to explore the possibility of amending electoral legislation to allow elections under martial law provided that international partners guarantee the security of the electoral process. If security is ensured, Zelenskyy said, Ukraine could hold elections within 60 to 90 days.

This unexpected move, though risky at first glance, is arguably a win-win for Zelenskyy and Ukraine. Kyiv and its allies have struggled to develop international consensus around the need for a ceasefire before meaningful peace talks can begin, but now Zelenskyy has put a ceasefire back on the table. In doing so he is addressing US President Donald Trump’s repeated suggestion—echoing Kremlin talking points and reiterated on December 9—that Ukraine should hold presidential elections without delay and stop “using war” as an excuse.

In taking steps to remove legislative obstacles and requesting that the United States “perhaps together with European colleagues” provide security for the electoral process, Zelenskyy puts the ball back in Trump’s court. While responding to Trump’s pressure to hold elections—an idea that runs counter to the will of the Ukrainian people—Zelenskyy effectively pushes Trump to turn to Russia to secure a ceasefire.

As has been the case since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion—and most recently on December 16 when Moscow rejected an offer of a Christmas ceasefire—Putin will almost certainly reject another ceasefire bid, especially now that it could lead to elections Zelenskyy is likely to win. Moreover, Putin would hardly be willing to enable elections that would deprive him of his tendentious argument that Ukraine’s government is illegitimate.

Despite a complex backdrop—and with security for elections virtually impossible to guarantee at this stage—Zelenskyy’s effort to create a legal framework for wartime voting (already taking shape in the appropriate parliamentary committee) has other critical upsides. It signals to Ukrainian society and international partners that the president is entrusting parliament with framing and legislating a historically important decision. This, in itself, is a savvy move, as it suggests an intention to improve the balance of power in the country following Zelenskyy’s dismissal of his top aide Andriy Yermak amid a corruption probe. Even so, far more decisive steps would be required to prove the seriousness of this intention.

Furthermore, this step boosts Zelenskyy’s domestic approval as he is opening himself up to political competition despite its evident limitations. He is demonstrating that he is not avoiding responsibility for the state of peace talks, frontline dynamics, or domestic developments including the unfolding energy corruption investigation. Combined with his statement suggesting that he may dismantle his presidential office altogether in the effort to reset Ukraine’s constitutional governance, it further neutralizes the corrosive effects of the corruption scandal on his perceived legitimacy.

While elections remain a distant prospect, Zelenskyy’s timely statement sends the right signals both internationally and domestically and, just as importantly, eases pressure on Ukraine to yield to Russia’s maximalist demands. It sets the stage for Trump to confront, yet again, the frustrating reality: Russia remains the only obstacle to a ceasefire and, more broadly, to genuine negotiations that could lead to lasting peace.