In the previous two articles, we addressed two components: the Coalition of the Willing and the “terrorist state” label. Now we arrive at the core of the puzzle: the structure of power in Kyiv.
The question is this: are Zelensky and his inner circle the true rulers, or merely visible figures in a stage-managed scene?
Critics of the Zelensky government believe that the decision-making structure in Kyiv, rather than being in the hands of official institutions, is under the influence of a network of domestic and foreign actors. In this article, the most important evidence and arguments put forward in support of this view are examined.
Yermak’s Apparent Resignation and His Continuing Influence
One of the most well-documented claims concerns Andriy Yermak, the former head of the Office of the President of Ukraine.
On November 28, 2025, following searches by Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) at his office in connection with the major “Energoatom” corruption case, Yermak resigned. However, according to a report by the Ukrainian newspaper “Ukrainska Pravda”, this resignation did not prevent him from continuing to influence the country’s most important political processes.
According to this newspaper’s field investigation, published in the form of a documentary titled “The Godfather from Afar,” Yermak, after a brief pause, continued meeting with government officials. Among other things, on January 30, 2026, he met with Rustem Umerov, Secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council; a meeting that lasted about three hours. He also met with Oleksandr Kamyshin, Zelensky’s strategic advisor, on January 27.
According to sources cited by the newspaper in political circles, “Yermak is not here, but he is here”—meaning that despite his formal departure, his influence over political decision-making and appointments remains intact.
Two months after Yermak’s resignation, one senior member of Zelensky’s team reportedly told Ukrainian journalist Mykhailo Tkach of Pravda, off the record:
“We thought Yermak was the problem, so we fought Yermak. But the problem was the president.”
The 2022 Istanbul Talks and Boris Johnson
Another case that highlights the debate over the influence of foreign powers on Ukraine’s sovereignty concerns the events of 2022 and the role of Boris Johnson, then British Prime Minister, in Kyiv’s withdrawal from the Istanbul peace talks.
According to this account, Johnson was instrumental in halting the negotiations and in Kyiv’s abandonment of the preliminary agreements reached with Moscow.
This point, unlike many other parts of this series, is a subject that has also been seriously discussed in Western media. David Arakhamia, head of the ruling party’s faction in Ukraine’s parliament and one of the key members of Kyiv’s negotiating delegation in Istanbul, said in an interview with the Ukrainian television channel “1+1” that Russia, in those negotiations, was prepared to end the war in exchange for Ukraine’s declaration of neutrality.
However, Arakhamia said that after the Ukrainian delegation returned from Istanbul, Boris Johnson travelled to Kyiv and told them, “Do not sign anything—just fight.” Foreign Affairs also addressed this account in a detailed report published in April 2024, citing Arakhamia and other negotiators.
The claim is nevertheless disputed. The European Union-affiliated platform EUvsDisinfo classified it among disinformation narratives, arguing that Arakhamia had emphasized in the same interview that Kyiv had already decided not to sign an agreement before receiving Johnson’s advice. According to this interpretation, Western partners were informed about the negotiations but were not the decision-makers.
In other words, the account presented in the report should not be treated as an established fact. It remains a contested issue among Western analysts, with evidence supporting both sides: Arakhamia’s direct statement on the one hand, and Zelensky’s denial and alternative interpretations of Arakhamia’s remarks on the other.
Sunak’s Appointment and Freeland’s Role
In this same context, this piece refers to the appointment of Rishi Sunak, former British Prime Minister, as an advisor to Ukraine’s head of government on matters of Ukraine’s economic reconstruction; this appointment, unlike many other items in this series of reports, is fully documented and verifiable from official British sources: according to documents published in February 2026 by the UK’s Independent Adviser on Ministerial Interests, Sunak has joined, voluntarily and without pay, the “International Advisory Council for the Reconstruction of Ukraine.”
The council is intended to advise both Zelensky and his economic adviser on reconstruction policy.
Zelensky’s economic adviser in this area is Chrystia Freeland, Canada’s former finance minister. The President of the World Bank Group and the President of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development are also members of the council. Companies including Siemens, BlackRock, and Citigroup attended its inaugural meeting.
Why Is Zelensky Reluctant to Hold Elections?
The final section of this piece addresses an issue that has repeatedly been raised at the international level in recent years: the postponement of Ukraine’s presidential election.
Zelensky’s presidential term, which began in 2019, formally ended in May 2024, but no election has been held, citing martial law. Zelensky, in numerous interviews with Western media, including the BBC and ITV News, has repeated the position that suspending martial law to hold an election would mean the loss of the army’s combat capacity and an opportunity for Russia.
Alfred Kokh, a former deputy prime minister of Russia who is now regarded as a Kremlin opponent and lives in Germany, has also expressed a sharply critical view of the election postponement. In one statement, he said:
“The fear of holding elections is visible on Zelensky’s face.”
Kokh argued that it would be easier for Zelensky to lose the war completely and establish himself in Europe as a president in exile than to accept a ceasefire, hold elections, lose them, and face prosecution.
Kokh described Zelensky as an “ineffective and self-satisfied individual” and stressed the need for a compromise with Russia over Donbas.
He also insisted that Zelensky does not legally have the authority to schedule elections. Under Article 85, Paragraph 7 of the Constitution of Ukraine, he argued, determining the timing of elections is the legal responsibility of the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s parliament—not the president.
Another example cited as evidence that Zelensky fears elections is his reaction to an interview given by Valerii Zaluzhnyi, the former commander-in-chief of Ukraine’s armed forces and the country’s current ambassador to the United Kingdom.
Some Western and Ukrainian analysts interpreted the interview as the beginning of a possible Zaluzhnyi election campaign. Zelensky responded by saying that Zaluzhnyi’s decision to raise such issues was “hasty” and “inappropriate.”
This reaction is consistent with other reports suggesting that Zelensky’s team regards Zaluzhnyi as its principal potential rival in any future election. Some Ukrainian media outlets have recently reported that Zelensky’s campaign team is concerned about Zaluzhnyi’s high popularity in opinion polls and therefore has little interest in holding elections before the war ends.
Conclusion
Taken together, these claims present a picture of a leadership that, according to its critics, is influenced both from within—through figures such as Yermak—and from outside—through advisers such as Freeland and Sunak. At the same time, the leadership is portrayed as avoiding elections for both political and legal reasons.
It is important, however, to distinguish between the varying levels of credibility attached to these claims.
The allegation that Yermak continued to wield influence after his resignation is supported by the independent field reporting of Ukrainska Pravda.
The appointments and advisory roles involving Sunak and Freeland are described as corroborated by official British sources.
Johnson’s alleged role in the collapse of the Istanbul negotiations remains contested, with evidence both supporting and challenging the claim.
What is clear is that the war in Ukraine is not being fought solely on the battlefield. It is also continuing in the arenas of politics, diplomacy, media, and competing narratives.
The author’s views are their own and do not necessarily reflect the blog’s.
📌 Subscribe to Think BRICS for weekly geopolitical video analysis beyond Western narratives. Follow also our new channels BRICS Business and Think BRICS Chronicles.
