Zelensky Floated Stepping Down from Power ‘For Peace’, but Instead He Is Intimidating and Silencing Opponents, Paving the Way for a Vote That Keeps Him in Office: REPORT

Published October 7, 2025

When Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky last winter made headlines by saying he was “ready” to resign if it would help broker peace and secure NATO membership, many observers shrugged: rhetorical flourish in a war, not a genuine exit plan. That claim, as reported by Politico, was seen by critics and allies alike as a bid to defuse accusations of authoritarian ambition. (Politico’s original article on Zelenskyy’s evolving role during the war is blocked to bots via robots.txt, so I rely on summary commentary and public discussion.)

Yet a new narrative is emerging—one pushed by commentators like Paul Serran at The Gateway Pundit—that Zelensky now may be consolidating power rather than stepping away. Serran’s piece alleges he is “intimidating and silencing opponents,” using legal tools to restrict critics, and positioning for an election that will keep him in office.

This contradiction—between the rhetoric of voluntary resignation and actions that suggest staying in power at all costs—is the central tension in Zelensky’s present moment. To understand it, one must consider three overlapping dynamics: war exigencies, internal political pressures, and the challenges of democratic legitimacy under fire.

—

1. War as the amplifier of executive power

A key context is that Ukraine is in a state of existential crisis. The ongoing war with Russia means that political continuity, strong leadership, and centralized decision-making often take precedence over institutional checks. In wartime, even democracies sometimes tolerate expanded executive authority in the name of national survival.

Thus, Zelensky’s appeals to resign “for peace” may function less as genuine steps toward leaving office and more as political signaling—to domestic skeptics, international donors, or opposition voices. By floating the possibility of stepping down, he may be aiming to:

Deflect accusations of authoritarian ambition.

Rally international support by presenting himself as self-sacrificing.

Test domestic sentiment (“If I leave, will chaos follow?”).

But if institutional safeguards are weak, such gestures risk becoming a veneer over real power consolidation.

—

2. Legal tools, “lawfare,” and opposition suppression

According to Serran’s article, Zelensky’s regime is using “lawfare”—the use of legal and regulatory tools—to target dissenting political actors. For example:

Opening criminal or anti-corruption investigations against critics or perceived opponents.

Smearing opposition figures with charges of treason or “nefarious ties to Russia.”

Weakening or restructuring anti-corruption bodies.

These actions can shift the political playing field in Zelensky’s favor. Critics quoted in Serran’s piece suggest that even warnings or investigation threats are enough to intimidate would-be challengers.

In effect, Zelensky may be constructing a de facto control environment in which competitive politics survive only within narrow, constrained boundaries.

—

3. The legitimacy challenge and public opinion

Even in wartime, leaders must maintain a credible claim to legitimacy. For Zelensky, that comes from:

His wartime image and moral authority as the defender of Ukraine.

International backing in the form of financial, military, and diplomatic support.

Continued—and not necessarily overwhelming—domestic support or acquiescence.

If he is seen as sliding toward authoritarianism, the eroded support could become a strategic liability. Floating the idea of resignation (“I don’t necessarily aim for a second term,” as quoted in the Serran article) can function as a pressure valve: if criticism rises, he can point again to his “willingness” to step down.

But if the structural constraints on opposition—and on free debate—are too tight, the public may have little real alternative. That further concentrates power.

—

4. Risks and tipping points

Zelensky’s balancing act is precarious. Some risks and potential flashpoints:

International backlash: Western governments and institutions usually emphasize democratic norms. If Zelensky is perceived to go too far in suppressing dissent, donor and diplomatic support could be threatened.

Opposition fragmentation or underground mobilization: If overt political contestation is shut down, dissent might move into more radical or informal spaces, raising instability risks.

War setbacks: A military defeat or serious setback could sharply weaken his claims to indispensability, and opponents might seize the moment.

Succession crisis: If Zelensky steps out, who would succeed him? The absence of strong, viable alternatives could be both a blessing and danger—blessing in that it makes regime continuity easier, danger in that it could provoke elites jockeying.

If he attempts to “engineer” re-election (via favorable laws, disqualifications, or media control), the very semblance of democracy could be lost—and with it, much of his soft power abroad.

—

5. Balancing war and democracy: The tightrope

Zelensky’s predicament is representative of a broader dilemma: how to maintain democratic legitimacy while waging an existential war. For Ukraine:

Mobilization, censorship, and central control may be necessary.

But overreach can alienate allies and weaken internal cohesion.

Political space is both a vulnerability and a strength: allowing criticism may slow decisions or undermine morale, but suppressing it risks delegitimization.

In the end, the question may not be if Zelensky attempts to extend or consolidate his rule, but how far he goes before pushback—domestic, international, or military—becomes unavoidable.

Public / Political Reactions

Public Opinion Inside Ukraine

1. Trust Levels Sliding

After proposals to subjugate independent anti-corruption bodies under a hand-picked prosecutor general, Zelensky’s trust rating dropped to 58% in July 2025 (from ~74% in May).

Citizens cite corruption and war management among the leading causes of distrust.

2. Desire for Stability During Martial Law / War

Large majorities support Zelensky staying in power until martial law is lifted. A KIIS survey from mid-2024 showed 70% believe he should remain president until then.

Similarly, most Ukrainians oppose replacing or dismissing key military leaders under controversy. For example, 72% opposed the resignation of Commander-in-Chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi.

3. Concerns About Democratic Norms

Over 40% of respondents believe democracy has deteriorated under Zelensky.

Many Ukrainians express worries about corruption and transparency in government decisions, especially when laws are fast-tracked or seem to target independent oversight institutions.

4. Ambivalent Feelings: Hope vs. Disappointment

Polls and media show mixed emotions: while many Ukrainians feel pride, hope, or trust in Zelensky’s leadership (especially because of the war effort), there is also a sizable share feeling disappointment, frustration over internal issues (corruption, living conditions, war fatigue).

For example, after controversial legislative moves in mid-2025, protests emerged broad across society, indicating that citizens remain engaged and expect a degree of accountability.

—

Political Reactions Within Ukraine

1. Parliament / Ruling Party Tensions

Some MPs from Zelensky’s own party (Servant of the People) expressed feeling misled over votes about anti-corruption bodies; tension within the parliamentary majority has increased.

The reversal of the contested law (on restoring independence to anti-corruption agencies) was widely praised and seen as a response to public and political pressure.

2. Civil Society Mobilization

Protests have occurred, even during wartime, when laws are perceived as undermining democratic checks (e.g. law curtailing watchdog independence).

Media, NGOs, journalists have raised alarms about transparency, press freedom, and rule of law. These voices are active in influencing both public debate and political outcomes. (E.g. getting the contested law reversed.)

—

International Reactions

1. Western Governments and Institutions

EU and other democratic partners have expressed concern when Ukraine’s actions are seen to weakens its democratic institutions. The independence of anti-corruption bodies is especially watched.

When criticism in Western media, especially calls around “dictatorship” or pressing for elections, arise, Ukraine responds by emphasizing the legal suspension of elections under martial law.

2. External Political Figures

Some foreign politicians, such as Sen. Lindsey Graham (USA), have called for Zelensky to consider resigning, often citing concern for democratic norms or peace negotiations.

Others defend him, pointing to the wartime context as requiring exceptional measures. Many emphasize support for Ukraine’s defense, even while urging democratic backsliding not be tolerated.

3. Media / Analyst Commentary

Analysts highlight the balancing act Zelensky is engaged in: maintaining legitimacy, keeping broad public support, and navigating constraints imposed by war while trying not to alienate Western backers.

Some commentators argue that statements about stepping down are strategic rhetoric aimed at appeasing criticism, rather than serious exit plans. Others warn that continued erosion of democratic institutions poses long-term risks for Ukraine’s international standing and aid.

—

Synthesis: What the Reactions Imply

Zelensky still retains substantial popular support, especially in relation to the war and national security. Many prefer continuity over instability in wartime.

However, there is an evident weariness: people are more critical of domestic issues (corruption, democracy, governance) than they might have been early in the war.

Political pressure—both from civil society inside Ukraine and from international partners—can force reversals (as with the anti-corruption law).

Signals that Zelensky might use rhetoric about resigning for peace are met with mixed responses: some appreciate the gesture or see it as self-sacrificing; others view it with skepticism, worried it could undermine or distract from democratic norms or be used as political leverage.

 Resulting Effects

1. Increased assertiveness of far-right actors domestically

The far-right (or more nationalist / conservative factions) have pushed back against any negotiation or perceived compromise with Russia, viewing those as capitulation. They criticize Zelensky’s proposals to talk peace or even stepping down in exchange for NATO membership, as weakening Ukraine’s position.

Some far-right groups see opportunity in Zelensky’s weakened legitimacy (from trust declines, protests, backlash over anti-corruption law) to claim that strong, uncompromising leadership is needed. They can use rhetoric of betrayal / weakness to mobilize support.

2. Polarization & social fragmentation

The tension between Zelensky’s centrist/wartime leadership and far-right demands has increased social polarization. Where some citizens demand democratic norms, transparency etc., others demand “no negotiation” and a firmer line.

This polarization puts pressure on public discourse, media, NGOs, activism. Right-wing voices are more likely to accuse critics of being pro-Russian or traitors if they critique Zelensky. That creates chilling effects, or at least loyalty signaling among public figures. (Criticism of government is more easily stigmatized in this climate.)

3. Political leverage for right-wing / nationalist parties elsewhere

In neighboring countries / regions, right-wing parties or politicians are using Zelensky’s controversies (power consolidation, anti-corruption agency takeovers, rhetoric about stepping down) to argue that Western support for Ukraine is misguided or that Ukraine is drifting away from democratic norms. Example: in Poland, some right-wing / conservative voices urge Ukraine to negotiate, criticize Zelensky for not compromising. (Polish right urging negotiations with Russia, criticizing Zelensky’s refusal to compromise.)

Also, right-wing media elsewhere are amplifying narratives of “Zelensky as authoritarian” or “Ukraine drifting from democracy” to support opposition to further Western aid. These narratives strengthen skepticism among right-leaning domestic audiences outside Ukraine.

4. Constraining Zelensky via political risk & oversight

Because right-wing reactions are strong, Zelensky is under increased pressure domestically to be demonstrably democratic else risk alienating parts of the population, losing legitimacy, or triggering alliances of opposition. E.g., the backlash to his law that would weaken independent anti-corruption agencies forced a reversal.

Internationally, right-leaning governments or politicians may condition their support for Ukraine (financial, military) on democratic behavior. If Zelensky is seen as crossing lines, donors might reduce support or impose stricter oversight. This makes his room for maneuver narrower. (Though concrete cases are less visible, the rhetoric is increasing.)

5. Shifting international narratives & propaganda leverage

Russian disinformation (or propaganda) efforts find stronger ammunition when right-wing critics abroad or nationalist media amplify perceived democratic backsliding in Ukraine. This is used by Moscow to claim hypocrisy by Western states.

Also, right-wing influencers and media (especially in the US or Europe) can make more traction with anti-Ukraine aid arguments, using Zelensky’s statements or controversies to argue “we’re funding a regime that suppresses dissent / is authoritarian.” That may influence public opinion or policy in aid-providing countries.

6. Potential internal security / stability effects

More assertive far-right factions could escalate street-level protests or conflicts with government or with civil society. If they feel rules are being changed to favor Zelensky, they may see extra-legal means as more justified. This raises risk of internal clashes, destabilization.

Militias or volunteer brigades with nationalist origins (e.g. Azov or affiliated groups) currently play both military and political roles. Their loyalty may be contingent on perceptions of strength, ideological alignment. If Zelensky is seen as compromising or as being “weak,” right-wing units or influencers may distance, become more critical, or demand more say.

—

Risks from Right-Wing Effects

Right-wing impatience may push for more extreme or uncompromising policies that complicate diplomatic solutions (negotiations, compromises) that might be necessary for peace.

Elevated tensions could lead to backlash, polarization so deep it undermines unity needed for war effort or international support.

If right-wing actors frame Zelensky’s leadership as illegitimate (due to power consolidation), that narrative could reduce domestic morale or create splits in military or security institutions.

The international donor base is sensitive to democratic legitimacy. If accusations of authoritarianism grow, it may give aid opponents (particularly in right-wing circles in donor countries) more leverage to restrict or condition aid, which could harm Ukraine’s war capabilities.

Zelensky and his gray eminence Andryi Yermak are silencing all opposition – photo Wiki Commons

 Future Outlook

Key Factors Shaping the Path Ahead

Before looking at scenarios, several key variables will largely determine how things evolve:

1. War status / battlefield dynamics
The outcome (or stalemate) of major military operations, front-line losses or gains, and whether Ukraine can maintain momentum or if war fatigue causes slowdowns. Major defeats could weaken Zelensky politically; successes bolster his position.

2. Martial law and elections
Since elections are postponed under martial law, how and when that state ends (or is eased) will be crucial. Pressure from public opinion, international partners, or legal challenges may push toward elections or other democratic mechanisms.

3. International aid & donor expectations
Ukraine relies heavily on Western financial, military, economic support. Donor governments’ concerns about rule of law, corruption, transparency, democratic norms (e.g. anti-corruption bodies) will shape how much slack Zelensky has. Losing donor trust could reduce resources or tie them to stricter conditions.

4. Public sentiment & legitimacy
How the Ukrainian public responds to power consolidation, criticisms, economic hardship, and war fatigue. If trust declines further, Zelensky may face growing internal opposition or calls for leadership change.

5. Opposition / alternative leadership
Figures such as Valerii Zaluzhnyi (former Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces) or others may grow in political relevance. If they are seen as credible alternatives, pressure will build.

6. EU / NATO integration & reforms
Zelensky’s commitments to reforms (e.g. anti-corruption, judicial independence) are watched closely. Failure to meet expectations could delay integration into EU, decrease political capital.

7. External political shifts
Changes in U.S. administration, European political winds (election outcomes, foreign policy shifts), or global economic pressures could alter how much support Ukraine gets or what is expected in return.

—

Possible Scenarios

Here are several plausible scenarios for how things might unfold:

Scenario What Could Happen Implications

Stability & gradual democratic renewal Zelensky successfully responds to protests and criticism (e.g. restores more oversight to anti-corruption agencies, increases transparency), maintains support in Western capitals, wins some military successes, continues receiving strong aid. Elections (presidential and/or parliamentary) are held after martial law is lifted. Legitimacy remains high; Ukraine makes progress toward EU/NATO integration; internal political opposition is kept within democratic bounds; right-wing criticism is deflected or co-opted. Zelensky ends his term with honor.

Power consolidation under pressure Zelensky continues to centralize power (loyalist appointments, legal adjustments), delays or constrains elections under justifications of security, war, existential threat. Public trust erodes gradually; NGOs, civil society push back. More authoritarian tilt; increased friction with EU/Western allies over democratic norms; risk of external conditionality on aid; domestic polarization intensifies; possible rise of alternative leaders or movements.

Political crisis or decline A major military setback (loss on front, failure in key operation) or economic/social crisis (energy shortages, inflation, displacement) triggers a legitimacy crisis. Donor fatigue; domestic protests escalate. Opposition figures gain traction. Potential for change in leadership (electoral or otherwise); possibility of uneasy peace negotiations under unfavorable terms; more leverage by right-wing / nationalist critics; risk of fragmentation; Ukraine’s international path (EU/NATO) becomes more complicated.

Negotiated peace / frozen conflict under external pressure Under pressure from some Western allies, or due to war exhaustion, Ukraine enters into peace negotiations. To secure peace or security guarantees, Zelensky might offer concessions, possibly even limiting some claims, or agree to a “ceasefire line.” In parallel, perhaps resigns or agrees to a transitional solution. This may stabilize the country, but at cost of some territorial or sovereignty compromises. Internally, such moves might be seen as betrayal by right-wing or nationalist factions; could provoke backlash. Internationally might lose some moral standing, but could gain security / reconstruction benefits.
Authoritarian drift with war rhetoric Zelensky doubles down on wartime messaging, increases censorship / legal actions vs critics, uses security justification to block dissent, extend martial law or its effects. Positions himself as indispensable. Risk of international isolation or conditional reductions in aid; domestic discontent rising (but possibly repressed or fragmented); long-term damage to institutions; erosion of democratic norms; possibly worse for Ukraine’s European integration aspirations.

 Bottom Line:

President Volodymyr Zelensky’s leadership has evolved from that of a reform-minded outsider to a wartime ruler increasingly focused on consolidating power. What began as a fight for Ukraine’s survival has, according to critics, turned into a struggle for political dominance — one where opposition voices are silenced, elections delayed, and dissent painted as disloyalty. While the mainstream media often portrays these moves as wartime necessities, right-leaning observers argue they mirror the very authoritarianism Ukraine claims to oppose.

Zelensky once floated the idea of stepping down “for peace,” a statement many saw as evidence of humility. Yet, his recent actions — extending martial law, curbing press freedom, and reshaping Ukraine’s political structure — have raised alarm among those who believe he has no real intention of relinquishing power. Western nations continue to pour billions in aid into Ukraine, but even among its allies, patience is thinning. Critics question how long taxpayers in the U.S. and Europe can justify funding a government accused of eroding democratic safeguards under the guise of wartime necessity.

Supporters still hail Zelensky as a symbol of defiance against Russia, but patriotism cannot excuse political overreach. If Ukraine is to stand as a beacon of freedom, it must uphold the democratic values it defends — not abandon them for political convenience. For many conservatives, Zelensky’s trajectory serves as a cautionary tale: when war grants unchecked power, democracy becomes the first casualty.

Ukraine’s greatest test may not be the fight against Russia, but whether it can survive its own leader’s growing grip on authority. History has shown that nations which trade liberty for security often lose both — and unless Zelensky corrects course, Ukraine risks proving that lesson true once again.

SOURCES: THE GATEWAY PUNDIT – Zelensky Floated Stepping Down from Power ‘For Peace’, but Instead He Is Intimidating and Silencing Opponents, Paving the Way for a Vote That Keeps Him in Office: REPORT

POLITICO – Politics in wartime — Ukraine-style