The Generals Reshaping Ukraine's Politics
By Oleksii Dziubynskyi
Ukraine’s political landscape is unrecognizable compared to what it was just 5 years ago. The so-called “Old Guard,” which includes Petro Poroshenko, ex-president of Ukraine and Yuliia Tymoshenko, the famous career politician, has all but disappeared. Their replacements are not typical, populist, career politicians common in Europe, but rather generals with only military experience. Ukrainian politics are entering a new era never seen before in the country’s history.
Volodymyr Zelensky has been the president of Ukraine since 2019 and is unlikely to win any upcoming election. Public perception of his presidency has been mixed, garnering both extreme praise and harsh criticism from Ukrainians, most of whom readily acknowledge his exceptional leadership in the first months of war, making him one of the most celebrated wartime leaders of the twenty-first century. However, repeated corruption scandals involving the people he appointed closest to him have significantly damaged his reputation. Corruption is among the most painful topics in Ukraine's political discourse, having repeatedly raised traumatic scandals. Post-war elections are an especially divisive subject. The current trust rating for Zelensky remains at around 46%, while distrust sits at 49%. This creates a very serious situation where Zelensky's chances of reelection are slim. His successor will inherit the opportunity to reshape Ukraine.
The two leading presidential prospects both stem from military backgrounds. Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine Kyrylo Budanov and the former Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Valerii Zaluzhnyi were virtually unknown outside military circles five years ago. Today, they are perhaps the most trusted people in Ukraine. Each of them has atrust rating of around 60% according to Socis, which is essentially an unachievable goal for any other politician in Ukraine. Zaluzhnyi has already made his move: in a June 2026 meeting with Zelensky, reported by Ukrainska Pravda, he confirmed that he would run if elections were held in the fall, stating that too many Ukrainians had placed their hopes in him to ignore that trust. Budanov has yet to declare, but few in Kyiv doubt his ambitions. Neither man has any political experience. To understand their appeal, one has to look at the history of Ukrainian politics and the war.
In Budanov and Zaluzhnyi, people see a new kind of leader — one who has protected them not with empty slogans, but with real action on the battlefield. Each previous post-Soviet president was elected with the hope for a fresh start and a better future. Unfortunately, few of these hopes have come to fruition. Every administration has been marred by corruption scandals, while ordinary citizens did not see major improvements in living standards and the fight against corruption. Budanov and Zaluzhnyi’s names remain untouched by the scandals that so deeply undermined Ukrainian public trust in previous governments.
Valerii Zaluzhnyi served as Ukraine's Commander-in-Chief from the first day of the full-scale invasion until early 2024, when Zelensky dismissed him. He was praised for his unconventional ideas and his ability to hold off Russian forces. Most military successes of that period were strongly associated with his leadership. While Zelensky claimed the dismissal was because the military “need[ed] fresh ideas”, many observers suspected the real reason was his skyrocketing popularity and lack of unwavering loyalty. He was quietly moved to London as Ukraine's ambassador to the United Kingdom, a role that leaves him far from domestic politics. Still, Zaluzhnyi maintains very high popularity and name recognition among Ukrainians. Kyrylo Budanov, meanwhile, has led Ukraine's military intelligence since 2020, masterminding the long-range drone campaign that has brought the war to Russian soil. His role as Zelensky's chief of staff makes him the most powerful person in the president’s cabinet. His position has been strengthened further by growing speculation that he could be Zelensky's chosen successor. His high ratings, combined with his proximity to the president, place him in a uniquely strong position, and there is talk in Kyiv of a possible alliance between the two, one that would consolidate their combined political weight and offer Zelensky a measure of protection after leaving office.
Ukraine's next president will be a soldier. Barring a dramatic reversal, the next occupant of the presidential chair will come from the military, not the political class, and the transformation of Ukrainian politics this represents is already irreversible. However, the risk is real: a leader whose entire career was built on command structures, where orders flow downward and loyalty is paramount, could entrench the wartime centralization that already ails Ukrainian governance. The war has left parliament sidelined, as major decisions have been directed from the president's office rather than emerging from legislative debate. A soldier president would risk accelerating this trend. Neither Zaluzhnyi nor Budanov has ever had to build a coalition, negotiate with an opposition party, or answer for political decisions. A leader trained to command rather than to compromise may continue Ukraine's centralized wartime governance, finding it suited to their style rather than perceiving it to be a problem to fix.
Ukraine is not without guardrails, however, and they will hold. Twice in eighteen months, Ukrainians have forced their government into retreat: in 2025, when street protests reversed a law gutting anti-corruption institutions (NABU and SAPO) within days, and in 2026, when soldiers and civilians alike stood up for the dismissed Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov. The EU accession process adds a second layer of constraints, binding every future Ukrainian government to standards of judicial independence and rule of law that it cannot quietly abandon. None of this means Ukraine's next president will be a committed democrat. It means he won't have a choice. Ukrainians have twice shown their leaders where they draw the line, and there is no reason to think they would hesitate to do it again.
Ukraine has always been a country of surprises. It survived Soviet collapse, two revolutions, and a full-scale invasion, each time emerging as something the world did not expect. The question of who comes next is, in many ways, the most consequential one the country has ever faced. Whether Ukraine's first post-war leader works with these institutions or against them will shape the pace of reconstruction, EU accession, and the long, unglamorous work of building a functioning democracy.
Zaluzhnyi and Budanov represent novelty in Ukrainian politics. They are not products of the old system, not tainted by its failures, and not beholden to its networks. That is exactly why Ukrainians trust them. Trust built on a clean record is fragile, as it has never been tested politically. Yet history suggests that military leaders can rise to the occasion. Eisenhower turned his wartime authority into eight years of steady, institution-respecting governance. De Gaulle, a general who came to power in a moment of national crisis, did not bury French democracy but rebuilt it, founding a republic that stands to this day. A background in uniform is not a sentence. What matters is whether the leader sees institutions as obstacles or as the foundation of the country he fought for. Ukraine's recent history offers grounds for confidence."
A soldier will hold the presidential bulava, and Ukraine will remain a democracy. Ukrainians have already shown, twice, that they will not be governed quietly. The wartime generation that filled the streets for NABU and for Fedorov is not going to disappear when the war ends; it will be the constituency every future president must answer to. The old Ukraine of Soviet-trained politicians and oligarch-backed parties is finished. What replaces it will be led by men in uniform and held in check by a society that no longer waits for permission to say no. Whether Zaluzhnyi and Budanov become statesmen or merely presidents, the country they inherit is stronger than either of them.
