MSM Reports Multiply on Zelensky’s Authoritarianism and Kiev Regime’s ‘Dark Side’ – Ukrainian Leader Unleashing ‘Lawfare’ Against Political Opponents

Zelensky is reportedly using lawfare to target all his political rivals.

Published November 1, 2025

Once viewed as the embodiment of democratic resistance, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is now facing a wave of reports questioning his leadership style and use of power. Western media outlets that once praised Kyiv’s wartime determination are increasingly highlighting concerns about what some describe as a turn toward authoritarian rule.

The debate intensified following accusations by former Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko, who claimed that Zelenskyy’s administration is engaging in “creeping authoritarianism” by using legal and institutional tools to weaken opponents. Poroshenko and other critics argue that the government has sought to consolidate control by restricting opposition parties and maintaining tight management of the media landscape.

According to various analyses cited in the reports, Ukraine’s wartime government has justified extraordinary measures as essential for national security. However, detractors insist these actions extend beyond the necessities of war and represent a lasting concentration of political power. The criticism centers on decisions such as extending the presidential mandate beyond May 2024, postponing elections, and implementing sweeping restrictions on political activity.

The Gateway Pundit article that sparked renewed discussion also points to mounting Western acknowledgment of Kyiv’s internal challenges. Once hesitant to criticize Ukraine during its conflict with Russia, several outlets have begun examining whether the government’s emergency powers have eroded democratic norms.

Press freedom groups have expressed alarm over media consolidation under wartime regulation, while independent journalists have reported difficulties accessing information or covering opposition viewpoints. Human rights advocates have warned that such measures, if left unchecked, could outlast the conflict and reshape Ukraine’s post-war political environment.

Despite these concerns, supporters of Zelenskyy emphasize the unprecedented circumstances his government faces. They note that Ukraine continues to fight for survival against Russian aggression and argue that temporary restrictions are vital to maintain unity and prevent internal destabilization. Kyiv officials maintain that all decisions made since the start of the invasion have been aimed at protecting the state and preserving national sovereignty.

As more mainstream media outlets pick up the story, the conversation about Ukraine’s internal governance is broadening. Observers now weigh not only the country’s military resilience but also the political and ethical questions emerging from wartime rule — a shift that signals a new phase in how the world views the leadership once hailed as a symbol of democratic defiance.

Ukraine really has a big Nazi problem.

Volodymyr Zelensky and his gray eminence Andriy Yermak – Wiki Commons.

For Zelensky to get re-elected, he needs to neutralize every single one of his opponents.

 Implications

⚖️ 1. Political Implications

a. Erosion of Zelensky’s global image

• For over two years, Zelenskyy was celebrated as a symbol of resistance and democracy.

• As reports of “authoritarian drift” gain traction, his moral high ground weakens, especially among Western audiences who initially rallied behind him.

• This can cause Western political fatigue — some voters and lawmakers may begin questioning continued aid to Ukraine if they view it as supporting a regime sliding into repression.

b. Domestic instability

• If opposition figures like Petro Poroshenko publicly accuse Zelenskyy of authoritarianism, that deepens internal divisions.

• Wartime unity could splinter, giving space for political rivalries or even civil unrest after the war ends.

• Authoritarian measures, even if justified by wartime security, often leave lingering distrust in postwar politics.

c. Shift in Ukraine’s democratic credentials

• If Ukraine is increasingly viewed as suppressing dissent or censoring the press, it risks damaging its case for EU membership or Western integration.

• European institutions prize rule of law and political pluralism — authoritarian reports could delay or derail long-term alignment with Europe.

💰 2. Economic and Strategic Implications

a. Foreign aid and investor confidence

• Western aid is partly humanitarian, partly symbolic — meant to support a “democratic ally.”

• If donor governments face public backlash over “funding an autocrat,” aid pipelines could slow or become conditional on reforms.

• Private investors may hesitate if they perceive Ukraine as politically unstable or unpredictable.

b. Information warfare advantage for Russia

• Moscow benefits from Western reports framing Ukraine as corrupt or authoritarian — it feeds the narrative that Kyiv is no better than Moscow.

• This weakens Ukraine’s moral leverage in diplomatic negotiations and could help Russia’s propaganda in Europe, Latin America, and Africa.

📰 3. Media and Perception Implications

a. Mainstream coverage shift

• If mainstream outlets (BBC, Reuters, Politico, etc.) start echoing concerns about Zelenskyy’s overreach, it signals a maturing narrative: from “heroic defender” to “flawed wartime leader.”

• This shift changes how Ukraine is discussed in political debates, especially in the U.S. Congress and European parliaments.

b. Polarization of audiences

• Conservative outlets may amplify these stories as proof that the “Western establishment misled the public.”

• Liberal or centrist outlets might counter with context about wartime necessity — leading to media fragmentation and growing cynicism among readers about all sides.

🌍 4. International Relations Implications

a. Pressure from allies

• NATO and EU partners may privately urge Zelenskyy to restore democratic norms to maintain legitimacy.

• Any perception of abuse of power could lead to reduced diplomatic enthusiasm or stricter monitoring of Ukrainian governance.

b. Changing U.S. support calculus

• If Washington perceives a loss of democratic legitimacy, bipartisan support for Ukraine may wane, particularly ahead of budget renewals.

• Aid debates may become less about defending democracy and more about limiting corruption or misuse of power.

 Overall Takeaway:

The growing reports of alleged authoritarianism under Volodymyr Zelenskyy mark a significant turning point in how Ukraine’s leadership is being portrayed. Once celebrated globally as a symbol of courage and democracy, Zelenskyy now faces scrutiny over actions that critics describe as undemocratic — including the suppression of opposition, limits on press freedom, and extended political control amid wartime conditions.

While supporters argue that some of these measures are necessary for national security during an existential war, the optics are increasingly damaging. The narrative shift — from hero to hardliner — could erode Ukraine’s moral authority, weaken Western unity, and slow the flow of international aid. It also provides Russia with ammunition in the information war, reinforcing claims that Kyiv’s government mirrors the same authoritarian behavior it condemns in Moscow.

Ultimately, the implications stretch far beyond Ukraine’s borders. Western governments and media now face a test of consistency: whether they will continue backing Kyiv unconditionally, or begin demanding accountability and political reform as the price of ongoing support. For Zelenskyy, the challenge lies in balancing wartime necessity with democratic integrity — because the battle for Ukraine’s freedom will not be won by military power alone, but by maintaining the trust of the world watching him.

SOURCES: THE GATEWAY PUNDIT – MSM Reports Multiply on Zelensky’s Authoritarianism and Kiev Regime’s ‘Dark Side’ – Ukrainian Leader Unleashing ‘Lawfare’ Against Political Opponents