Ukraine's Former Defence Minister Calls for Wartime Presidential Election

Ukraine's dismissed former defence minister Mykhailo Fedorov has called for a wartime presidential election, releasing a nine-minute video on his YouTube channel late Tuesday that directly challenges the suspension of democratic polls under martial law (Kyiv Post; The Guardian).

Fedorov, 35, served as Ukraine's digital minister from 2019 until January 2026, then briefly as defence minister until July 2026, when Zelenskyy removed him in a government reshuffle after a falling out with military commander Gen Oleksandr Syrskyi (Reuters). He was the last remaining minister to have held positions in all of Zelenskyy's governments (Reuters). Street protests followed his dismissal, leading to the sacking of Syrskyi himself (The Guardian).

In the video, Fedorov said Ukraine had to "restore a full democratic process even amid a prolonged war" and that the country needs a "legal, safe, and realistic mechanism" for holding elections during an extended conflict (The Guardian; Kyiv Post). He declared that "democracy cannot be held hostage by Russia" and framed Ukraine's war effort as a fight to remain a free European state (The Guardian).

Fedorov did not mention Zelenskyy by name but implied the president presided over a poorly functioning state struggling to tackle corruption (The Guardian). The speech was posted on the same day Zelenskyy formally nominated acting defence minister Yevhen Khmara to take the post permanently, with a parliamentary confirmation vote expected on Wednesday (The Guardian).

Here is the background. Elections have been suspended in Ukraine since martial law was imposed at the start of Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022. Martial law is a legal state of emergency that allows a government to restrict certain normal functions, including voting, during a crisis. Zelenskyy's five-year term ended in May 2024, and there has been little desire in Ukraine to hold an election while the war continues. Zelenskyy has remained in office under martial law, which prohibits wartime elections, and has periodically reshuffled his government (The Guardian; AP News).

Polling conducted at the turn of the month reported that Fedorov would come third in a presidential election (The Guardian). That figure, while not a winning position, places him as a viable contender in a field shaped by wartime constraints.

The broader context here is a succession crisis that has unfolded over the summer. Fedorov's dismissal in July, the street protests that followed, and the subsequent removal of Syrskyi have together exposed fractures within Ukraine's wartime leadership that go beyond ordinary cabinet reshuffling. A minister who served across every iteration of Zelenskyy's government, dismissed after a clash with a top general whose own removal followed public unrest, now publicly questioning the president's democratic legitimacy: that is a sequence that carries weight regardless of Fedorov's standing in the polls.

The constitutional question Fedorov raises is not new, but it has gained new traction. Martial law provides the legal basis for suspending elections, and Ukrainian public opinion has broadly accepted that trade-off as a wartime necessity. Fedorov's argument reframes the suspension as a vulnerability rather than a safeguard, arguing that the absence of democratic accountability corrodes the very state Ukraine is fighting to defend. His phrasing, calling for a "legal, safe, and realistic mechanism," concedes the practical difficulty without abandoning the principle.

The timing also matters. The Khmara nomination and the expected parliamentary vote on Wednesday signal Zelenskyy's intent to stabilize the defence portfolio after months of turbulence. Fedorov's intervention on the same day injects a different question into the political conversation, one about the presidency itself rather than the cabinet. Whether Fedorov's call resonates beyond his support base may depend on whether other political figures align with it, and on how the public weighs the risks of wartime voting against the costs of prolonged executive power without a renewed mandate.