Kellogg's Ukrainian Election Push: Furthering the Kremlin's Strategic Interests

Kellogg’s comments provide Russia with multiple angles from which to exert influence, delay, or manipulate the peace process to better suit their strategic goals

Retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, Donald Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, has given an interview to Reuters. In the interview, Kellogg says that the US wants Ukraine to hold elections, potentially by the end of the year, especially if a deal can be agreed to end the war.

According to Kellogg, Ukrainian presidential and parliamentary elections, suspended due to martial law, "need to be done".

"Most democratic nations have elections in their time of war. I think it is important they do so," Kellogg said. "I think it is good for democracy. That's the beauty of a solid democracy, you have more than one person potentially running."

In addition, in comments reported by AFP in The Moscow Times, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin said late on Tuesday this week that Russia could hold peace talks with Ukraine, but ruled out directly speaking with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who the dictator described as an “illegitimate” leader.

"If [Zelensky] wants to participate in the negotiations, I will send people to take part," Putin said in comments to state TV journalist Pavel Zarubin, calling the Ukrainian leader "illegitimate" since his presidential term expired last year during martial law.

This is nothing new. Russian state media, its propagandists, and useful idiots have been parroting this disinformation since spring 2024.

Why does this matter now? Given that Donald Trump is now the US President and has set his aides a target of quickly resolving the war, though details on how they think this will be achieved are scarce. By suggesting that Ukraine should hold elections, Kellogg's comments will likely be leveraged by Russia to set preconditions for peace talks. Russia might argue that any agreement or ceasefire should be contingent upon the outcome of these elections, thereby prolonging the war or trying to influence the political environment in Ukraine to their advantage. This could mean pushing for elections under terms beneficial to Russia or insisting that any peace deal be ratified by a new Ukrainian government that Moscow would want to be more sympathetic to Russian demands.

The facts

Volodymyr Zelenskyy was inaugurated as President of Ukraine for a five year term on 20 May 2019.

Under normal circumstances, presidential elections would have been held in spring 2024.

In response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, President Zelenskyy declared martial law. On 22 May 2022, the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s parliament, voted to extend martial law for 90 days. Since then, parliament has voted consistently to extend martial law whilst Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine unfortunately continues. The period of the martial law regime has been extended until 8 February 2025, but it can be further extended unlimited times. Martial law terminates in case of expiration of its period or adoption of the President's decree on the termination of martial law.

The Ukrainian Constitution and martial law prohibit national elections

Article 19 of Ukraine's "On the Legal Regime of Martial Law" bans presidential, parliamentary, and local elections under martial law, while Article 10 states that the powers of the president, parliament, and Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine cannot be terminated under martial law.

Article 83 of the Constitution of Ukraine states that if the term of the Verkhovna Rada expires under martial law, it shall automatically be extended until a new Rada is seated following the end of martial law.

Article 108 of the Constitution of Ukraine stipulates that "The President of Ukraine exercises his or her powers until the assumption of office by the newly-elected President of Ukraine", allowing incumbent President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to legitimately remain president until the next president is sworn in, even after the expiration of the five-year term to which he was elected in 2019.

According to the Constitution of Ukraine, Zelenskyy remains the legitimate head of state and must fulfil his duties until a new candidate, elected by the people, takes office. This is a fundamental rule of public administration – the continuity of state power. The fact that five years have passed since the election does not automatically strip the current president of their powers or duties: Ukrainian legislation does not allow for this post to remain empty, i.e. Zelenskyy is fulfilling his constitutional duties.

Also, according to the Constitution, elections must be free, fair, and transparent. In the conditions of martial law, when some of the voters are abroad, some are in the occupied territories, and some are at the front, when polling stations cannot work normally due to air raid alarms and shelling, when observers cannot work freely, the elections will not be considered democratic.

What has Zelenskyy said about elections?

In his recent interview with podcaster Lex Fridman, Zelenskyy stated:

“Everyone in Ukraine understands that this cannot be done until the war is over or legislation needs to be changed. I believe that elections will take place immediately after the end of martial law. This is according to the law, or members of the parliament need to get together and change legislation, which will be very difficult to do because society is against it. Why is society against it? It is understandable why, because we want elections that we want to trust. 8.5 million people went abroad. The infrastructure needs to be created for these millions of people to vote. Millions of people in the occupied territories. I'm not even talking about the occupation of 2014, I'm talking about the occupation right now. What to do with these people this is a difficult question and one of the most unfair ones is how to vote without having a million soldiers. That is… it is impossible. We need to think about how to change the system if the elections are held in times of war, change the legislation, which should include changes to the voting system to think about online voting. Everyone is afraid because of certain attacks like cyber attacks and so on but we need to think about it.”

and

“When martial law ends you can immediately vote in parliament to hold elections and then everyone will vote because there are no restrictive measures, and after they vote I think elections can be held in 90 days… and this means that immediately after the end of the war elections may take place.”

So… elections can be held when martial law has been lifted!

And what needs to happen for martial law to be lifted? Russia to stop invading Ukraine!

Why are Kellogg’s comments dangerous?

The focus should be on strengthening Ukraine. Russia is targeting and killing Ukrainian civilians every single day with impunity. Ukraine deserves peace, restoration of its territorial integrity, and justice. The legal framework to permit elections is in place as I have detailed above. Simply put, Russia just needs to get out of Ukraine!

Given that Ukrainian society doesn’t want elections, Kellogg’s comments are a gift to the Kremlin, for several reasons:

1. Legitimacy: Kellogg's focus on trying to get Ukraine to agree to hold elections post-ceasefire (despite the legal framework already being in place), aligns with Russian narratives that Zelenskyy lacks the legal mandate to lead or negotiate peace deals. This plays into Putin's (false!) claims that Zelenskyy is not a legitimate president, which could undermine Ukraine's position in peace negotiations.

2. Political instability: Pushing for elections could potentially destabilise Ukraine. The legal framework is in place to hold elections after martial law expires. Preparing for or holding elections under martial law and amidst ongoing military conflict could lead to logistical challenges, security risks, and could divide Ukrainian society or leadership at a critical time. This invites Russian influence campaigns or internal divisions, potentially weakening Ukraine's resolve and unity against Russian aggression. In 2024, we saw clear Russian meddling in elections in Moldova, Georgia and Romania to install Kremlin-friendly candidates. That would be nothing compared to what Russia would try in Ukrainian elections!

3. Influence over election outcomes: The call for elections could be a mechanism for the Kremlin to influence or even dictate political outcomes in Ukraine. By suggesting elections, particularly before a ceasefire, it could be seen as an attempt to replace the current Ukrainian leadership with someone more favourable to Russian interests, under the guise of democratic process. Russia will no doubt attempt to manipulate the electoral process or public opinion through disinformation campaigns, cyber attacks, or by supporting candidates or parties more aligned with their interests. The uncertainty of election outcomes could be used by Russia to push for interim arrangements or to weaken the current Ukrainian government's position in negotiations, arguing that any deal could be overturned with a change in leadership.

4. Negotiation leverage: Kellogg's comments provide Russia with additional leverage in peace talks. If elections become part of the negotiation process, Russia could try to insist on certain conditions or concessions from Ukraine before, during, or after the elections, furthering Russia’s strategic interests. If elections become a negotiation point, this serves Russian strategic goals by potentially creating the conditions to try and alter Ukraine's political landscape in Moscow's favour. This could mean pushing for elections and insisting that any peace deal be ratified by a new Ukrainian government which Moscow would hope would be more sympathetic to Russian demands. For example, Russia might agree to ceasefire terms or withdrawal of troops in exchange for guarantees on the electoral process or outcomes, or they might demand that certain Russian-friendly policies or territorial concessions be part of the new government's agenda.

5. Echoing Russian propaganda: By advocating for elections when we don’t know when martial law can be lifted, Kellogg inadvertently echoes Russian propaganda points about the need for Ukraine to prove its democratic credentials, even in wartime, which could be used by Russia to further its narrative of Ukraine's governance being in question. This could be especially potent in international forums where the legitimacy of leaders and governments is often discussed.

6. Delay tactics: Even if everyone agrees that elections should occur, preparing for them or organising them during wartime would be logistically challenging and a drain on resources, requiring a cessation of hostilities or at least a significant decrease in military activities. This could be used by Russia to delay negotiations, giving them more time to strengthen their positions on the ground or to wait out Western support for Ukraine.

7. Shifting blame: If elections lead to chaos or are seen as unfeasible due to ongoing conflict, Russia could try and shift the blame to Ukraine for not being able to govern or hold democratic processes, further painting Ukraine as unstable or incapable, which supports Russian narratives about the need for intervention or a change in leadership.

By introducing elections into the negotiation dialogue, Russia gains multiple angles from which to exert influence, delay, or manipulate the peace process to better suit their strategic goals. This could lead to a scenario where Ukraine is under pressure not only from defending itself from Russian aggression but also from the political manoeuvring that would accompany any election - or preparations for elections - in such contentious circumstances.

Let me know what you think in the comments! And if you enjoyed the post, please share it with anyone who you think would be interested.