Zelensky's Popularity Purge: Ex-FM's Bombshell Claim

A bombshell exclusive has just exposed a deep fracture at the heart of Ukrainian power.

What if the biggest threat to President Volodymyr Zelensky’s power isn’t a Russian missile, but a rising star within his own government? This is the shocking premise of a bombshell interview given by Ukraine’s former Foreign Minister, Dmytro Kuleba. He didn’t just resign; he claims he was purged because his popularity eclipsed that of the wartime leader himself.

The Popularity Purge Revealed

Kuleba, who left office under what were called “murky circumstances” last year, has now broken his silence with an explosive accusation. He revealed that the true reason for his dismissal was a cold political calculation by the President’s inner circle that he was becoming a clear electoral threat. This claim paints a picture of a wartime administration deeply insecure about its own democratic mandate.

The injustice of being sidelined for political success, rather than failure, is a powerful emotional trigger for the public. It suggests that personal loyalty and political subservience are now valued more highly than competence or popularity in Kyiv’s halls of power.

Fear of the Ballot Box

The accusation goes far beyond a personal grudge; it connects directly to the future of Ukrainian democracy. Kuleba stated bluntly that Ukrainian citizens are desperate for fresh elections, and that these polls could see President Zelensky “outed” by the voters. The fear inside the capital is palpable: the moment a ceasefire is declared, the political gloves come off.

He insists these elections will happen “immediately” after the guns fall silent, driven by a citizenry tired of wartime restrictions and eager to reclaim their democratic voice. This is a critical detail: the political clock is ticking down to the end of the war, not the end of the President’s term. Do you believe a leader truly committed to democracy would fear the will of his own people?

What’s At Stake for YOU

This isn’t just insider political drama; it has real-world human consequences for everyone supporting Ukraine. The instability created by a “popularity purge” at the highest levels can undermine the very unity the nation needs to secure a lasting peace. When trust breaks down between top officials, it sends a dangerous signal to international partners and, more importantly, to the soldiers on the front lines.

The core of the issue is the political health of a nation fighting for its right to exist as a free democracy. If the leadership is focused on eliminating internal rivals, how much focus is truly left for the existential fight against Russia? This controversy threatens to inject a crippling level of political anger into the national conversation.

The Broader Power Dynamics

This exclusive revelation exposes a critical power dynamic common in wartime governments: the consolidation of authority. While some consolidation is necessary for effective command, Kuleba’s claim suggests it has crossed the line into suppressing legitimate political opposition. The move serves as a stark warning about the fragility of democratic institutions under duress.

The former Foreign Minister’s voice carries significant weight, lending credibility to the narrative that Zelensky’s administration is preparing for a post-war political battle by clearing the deck of popular, independent figures. It’s a ruthless play for political survival in the coming storm. This action directly contradicts the democratic ideals Ukraine is fighting to uphold.

The path ahead for Ukraine is now split: one road leads to a unified, resilient democracy, the other to a political reckoning fueled by deep-seated distrust. Kuleba’s bombshell forces us to ask a difficult question: Is the leader hailed as a global icon of democracy now prioritizing his own political survival over the principle he is fighting for? The answer will determine the future of Ukraine long after the last shot is fired.

The Data Behind the Threat: Polling Evidence

Kuleba’s claim of being a political threat is substantiated by underlying shifts in Ukrainian sociological ratings that preceded his dismissal. While President Zelensky consistently maintained exceptionally high personal approval ratings throughout the full-scale invasion—often hovering above 80%—the political landscape beneath him was fracturing. Crucially, the popularity of his political party, Servant of the People (Sluha Narodu), had been in steady decline since 2021, a trend only temporarily arrested by the initial shock of the invasion. By mid-2023, independent sociological data indicated that the party’s electoral support had fallen significantly, suggesting a massive gap between personal trust in the President and institutional faith in his political machinery.

Evidence suggests Kuleba had successfully cultivated a unique political profile that transcended the party brand. As Foreign Minister, his visibility on the international stage was second only to Zelensky’s, and his consistent, articulate defense of Ukrainian interests translated into a high “Q-factor”—a measure of public recognition and appeal. Internal polling, often commissioned by the Presidential Office (OP) itself, reportedly showed Kuleba’s personal trust rating nearing 60%, a figure that, while lower than the President’s, was exceptionally high for a cabinet minister and placed him firmly among the top three most trusted non-presidential figures. This level of independent capital made him dangerous. Unlike ministers whose popularity derived solely from their proximity to Zelensky, Kuleba possessed institutional credibility both domestically and among Western partners. This created a scenario where, in a post-war election, he could potentially lead a new political formation that would draw votes directly from the disaffected center-right and pro-European segments traditionally courted by Servant of the People. The data, therefore, did not show Kuleba eclipsing Zelensky immediately, but rather establishing himself as the primary, credible heir apparent and a formidable independent challenger, a scenario the current administration appears unwilling to tolerate.

The Mechanism of Consolidation: The Role of the Presidential Office

The removal of Dmytro Kuleba was not an isolated incident but part of a broader, methodical process of power consolidation orchestrated primarily by the President’s Office (OP), led by Andriy Yermak. Under the framework of martial law, the OP has evolved from a coordinating body into a de facto parallel government, centralizing decision-making authority that traditionally resided with the Cabinet of Ministers (the government) and the Verkhovna Rada (parliament). This centralization was initially justified by the need for swift, unified wartime command, but it has been consistently leveraged to sideline competent officials perceived as possessing independent power bases.

The mechanism works through control over information flow and resource allocation. Ministers like Kuleba, who maintained direct lines of communication with foreign governments and international organizations, represented potential bypasses around the OP’s strict control over the national narrative and diplomatic initiatives. The purge utilizes several subtle but effective techniques: strategic leaks designed to undermine trust, reallocation of key staff and budgetary resources away from the minister’s control, and eventually, a political ultimatum resulting in resignation or dismissal. In Kuleba’s case, the evidence points to increasing friction over diplomatic strategy, where the OP sought to micromanage foreign policy engagements, transforming the Foreign Minister into an implementer of presidential directives rather than an independent policy architect. This structural pressure makes the continuation of independent, high-profile work untenable. The implication is clear: competence is tolerated only insofar as it serves the political agenda of the inner circle, and any manifestation of independent political gravity is immediately suppressed to ensure the OP remains the singular nexus of power in Kyiv. This dynamic actively degrades the institutional capacity of the ministries, prioritizing political obedience over effective governance.

Historical Precedent: Wartime Leadership and Political Suppression

While the immediate context is unique to Ukraine’s fight against Russia, the phenomenon of a wartime leader suppressing internal political rivals has deep historical roots, offering a valuable comparative lens. Leaders facing existential threats often employ what can be termed “pragmatic authoritarianism,” arguing that political unity necessitates the temporary suspension of internal democratic competition. However, the nature of the suppression is critical. During World War II, for example, Winston Churchill faced constant political pressure and challenges, yet the UK maintained its democratic processes, including by-elections and robust parliamentary debate, which ultimately forced Churchill’s post-war electoral defeat—a testament to institutional resilience.

In contrast, Kuleba’s alleged purge aligns more closely with instances where leaders sought to cement personal power structures under the guise of national emergency. The key distinction here is the basis for removal. If Kuleba were removed for policy failure or corruption, it would be standard governmental oversight. His alleged removal for success and popularity signals a profound insecurity about the post-war democratic transition. This action risks placing Zelensky’s administration on a trajectory similar to regimes that used national crises to dismantle pluralistic politics permanently. The historical implication is that leaders who purge popular rivals during conflict often struggle to transition back to open democracy, as the habits of centralized control and intolerance for dissent become entrenched. Ukraine’s ability to avoid this trap hinges on whether these actions are temporary survival tactics or the foundation for a permanent shift toward illiberal governance once the fighting stops. The evidence suggests the latter, given the systematic nature of recent cabinet and security service reshuffles targeting figures with independent mandates.

International Implications: Donor Fatigue and Democratic Backsliding

The revelation of internal political purges based on popularity has immediate and potentially catastrophic implications for Ukraine’s relationship with its international partners, particularly the European Union and the United States. Western aid, military support, and financial backing are fundamentally conditioned on Ukraine’s commitment to democratic integrity, anti-corruption reforms, and the rule of law.

The perception that Kyiv is prioritizing internal political survival over democratic principles fuels skepticism among key donor nations. Specifically, this controversy provides ammunition to political factions in the U.S. Congress and European parliaments—often fiscally conservative or isolationist—who already question the scale and duration of aid packages. If critics can successfully frame the Ukrainian government as engaging in democratic backsliding, the argument for continued massive financial support becomes significantly harder for pro-Kyiv politicians to make. The EU accession process is particularly sensitive; membership requires absolute adherence to democratic norms (the Copenhagen criteria). A high-profile purge based on eliminating popular competitors directly undermines Ukraine’s claim to be upholding these standards, potentially delaying or derailing its path toward full membership.

Furthermore, the instability generated by distrust at the top level complicates diplomatic efforts. International negotiators require reliable, long-term partners in Kyiv. When a successful Foreign Minister is suddenly dismissed under suspicious circumstances, it raises questions about the continuity of policy and the reliability of commitments made by the administration. This instability could lead to “donor fatigue,” where key allies become less willing to invest political and financial capital in a nation whose internal politics appear increasingly volatile and potentially undemocratic. The implications are tangible: fewer sophisticated weapon systems, slower integration into Western economic structures, and a weakened negotiating position against Russia, which actively seeks to portray Ukraine as a corrupt, unstable, and politically manipulative regime.

The Long-Term Cost: Erosion of Institutional Trust

The cumulative effect of eliminating popular, competent figures like Kuleba is the severe erosion of institutional trust, a damage far more insidious than political infighting. A democratic system relies on the assumption that success is rewarded and that leadership positions are filled by the most capable individuals, regardless of their immediate loyalty to the incumbent president. When the opposite occurs—when competence is punished if it generates independent political capital—the nation suffers a profound institutional brain drain.

The most talented individuals, observing the fates of those purged, will either self-censor, moderate their ambitions, or choose to leave government service entirely, prioritizing private sector opportunities or international roles where their success does not threaten their security. This creates a vacuum, leaving critical governmental roles to be filled by loyalists whose primary qualification is political subservience rather than expertise in diplomacy, finance, or defense.

The long-term cost is a weakened state apparatus precisely at the moment when Ukraine needs maximum efficiency for post-war reconstruction, massive infrastructure projects, and complex security reforms. Moreover, the public’s faith in the post-war political process will be severely diminished. If citizens believe that the elections, once held, will merely be a choreographed exercise where independent voices have already been pre-emptively eliminated, cynicism will deepen. This popular distrust provides fertile ground for external destabilization efforts and diminishes the moral authority of the government to demand sacrifice and unity from its people. Kuleba’s alleged purge thus represents not just a short-term political tactic, but a fundamental threat to the democratic resilience Ukraine is fighting so hard to preserve. The future stability of the nation depends on reversing this dangerous trajectory of prioritizing personal political survival over the foundational principles of meritocracy and pluralism.

The Data Behind the Threat: Polling Evidence

Kuleba’s claim of being a political threat is substantiated by underlying shifts in Ukrainian sociological ratings that preceded his dismissal. While President Zelensky consistently maintained exceptionally high personal approval ratings throughout the full-scale invasion—often hovering above 80%—the political landscape beneath him was fracturing. Crucially, the popularity of his political party, Servant of the People (Sluha Narodu), had been in steady decline since 2021, a trend only temporarily arrested by the initial shock of the invasion. By mid-2023, independent sociological data indicated that the party’s electoral support had fallen significantly, suggesting a massive gap between personal trust in the President and institutional faith in his political machinery.

Evidence suggests Kuleba had successfully cultivated a unique political profile that transcended the party brand. As Foreign Minister, his visibility on the international stage was second only to Zelensky’s, and his consistent, articulate defense of Ukrainian interests translated into a high “Q-factor”—a measure of public recognition and appeal. Internal polling, often commissioned by the Presidential Office (OP) itself, reportedly showed Kuleba’s personal trust rating nearing 60%, a figure that, while lower than the President’s, was exceptionally high for a cabinet minister and placed him firmly among the top three most trusted non-presidential figures. This level of independent capital made him dangerous. Unlike ministers whose popularity derived solely from their proximity to Zelensky, Kuleba possessed institutional credibility both domestically and among Western partners. This created a scenario where, in a post-war election, he could potentially lead a new political formation that would draw votes directly from the disaffected center-right and pro-European segments traditionally courted by Servant of the People. The data, therefore, did not show Kuleba eclipsing Zelensky immediately, but rather establishing himself as the primary, credible heir apparent and a formidable independent challenger, a scenario the current administration appears unwilling to tolerate.

The Mechanism of Consolidation: The Role of the Presidential Office

The removal of Dmytro Kuleba was not an isolated incident but part of a broader, methodical process of power consolidation orchestrated primarily by the President’s Office (OP), led by Andriy Yermak. Under the framework of martial law, the OP has evolved from a coordinating body into a de facto parallel government, centralizing decision-making authority that traditionally resided with the Cabinet of Ministers (the government) and the Verkhovna Rada (parliament). This centralization was initially justified by the need for swift, unified wartime command, but it has been consistently leveraged to sideline competent officials perceived as possessing independent power bases.

The mechanism works through control over information flow and resource allocation. Ministers like Kuleba, who maintained direct lines of communication with foreign governments and international organizations, represented potential bypasses around the OP’s strict control over the national narrative and diplomatic initiatives. The purge utilizes several subtle but effective techniques: strategic leaks designed to undermine trust, reallocation of key staff and budgetary resources away from the minister’s control, and eventually, a political ultimatum resulting in resignation or dismissal. In Kuleba’s case, the evidence points to increasing friction over diplomatic strategy, where the OP sought to micromanage foreign policy engagements, transforming the Foreign Minister into an implementer of presidential directives rather than an independent policy architect. This structural pressure makes the continuation of independent, high-profile work untenable. The implication is clear: competence is tolerated only insofar as it serves the political agenda of the inner circle, and any manifestation of independent political gravity is immediately suppressed to ensure the OP remains the singular nexus of power in Kyiv. This dynamic actively degrades the institutional capacity of the ministries, prioritizing political obedience over effective governance.

Historical Precedent: Wartime Leadership and Political Suppression

While the immediate context is unique to Ukraine’s fight against Russia, the phenomenon of a wartime leader suppressing internal political rivals has deep historical roots, offering a valuable comparative lens. Leaders facing existential threats often employ what can be termed “pragmatic authoritarianism,” arguing that political unity necessitates the temporary suspension of internal democratic competition. However, the nature of the suppression is critical. During World War II, for example, Winston Churchill faced constant political pressure and challenges, yet the UK maintained its democratic processes, including by-elections and robust parliamentary debate, which ultimately forced Churchill’s post-war electoral defeat—a testament to institutional resilience.

In contrast, Kuleba’s alleged purge aligns more closely with instances where leaders sought to cement personal power structures under the guise of national emergency. The key distinction here is the basis for removal. If Kuleba were removed for policy failure or corruption, it would be standard governmental oversight. His alleged removal for success and popularity signals a profound insecurity about the post-war democratic transition. This action risks placing Zelensky’s administration on a trajectory similar to regimes that used national crises to dismantle pluralistic politics permanently. The historical implication is that leaders who purge popular rivals during conflict often struggle to transition back to open democracy, as the habits of centralized control and intolerance for dissent become entrenched. Ukraine’s ability to avoid this trap hinges on whether these actions are temporary survival tactics or the foundation for a permanent shift toward illiberal governance once the fighting stops. The evidence suggests the latter, given the systematic nature of recent cabinet and security service reshuffles targeting figures with independent mandates.

International Implications: Donor Fatigue and Democratic Backsliding

The revelation of internal political purges based on popularity has immediate and potentially catastrophic implications for Ukraine’s relationship with its international partners, particularly the European Union and the United States. Western aid, military support, and financial backing are fundamentally conditioned on Ukraine’s commitment to democratic integrity, anti-corruption reforms, and the rule of law.

The perception that Kyiv is prioritizing internal political survival over democratic principles fuels skepticism among key donor nations. Specifically, this controversy provides ammunition to political factions in the U.S. Congress and European parliaments—often fiscally conservative or isolationist—who already question the scale and duration of aid packages. If critics can successfully frame the Ukrainian government as engaging in democratic backsliding, the argument for continued massive financial support becomes significantly harder for pro-Kyiv politicians to make. The EU accession process is particularly sensitive; membership requires absolute adherence to democratic norms (the Copenhagen criteria). A high-profile purge based on eliminating popular competitors directly undermines Ukraine’s claim to be upholding these standards, potentially delaying or derailing its path toward full membership.

Furthermore, the instability generated by distrust at the top level complicates diplomatic efforts. International negotiators require reliable, long-term partners in Kyiv. When a successful Foreign Minister is suddenly dismissed under suspicious circumstances, it raises questions about the continuity of policy and the reliability of commitments made by the administration. This instability could lead to “donor fatigue,” where key allies become less willing to invest political and financial capital in a nation whose internal politics appear increasingly volatile and potentially undemocratic. The implications are tangible: fewer sophisticated weapon systems, slower integration into Western economic structures, and a weakened negotiating position against Russia, which actively seeks to portray Ukraine as a corrupt, unstable, and politically manipulative regime.

• Tags:
• President