Fedorov's speech left the impression that he hadn't said everything he wanted to say

He has been by Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s side since the very beginning of the presidential campaign, which he helped shape largely with his own hands. He has been a member of every Zelenskyy administration from day one. And all these years—even before the full-scale invasion and already during the great war—we have not heard him publicly voice any disagreement with undemocratic tendencies in the country.

We did not hear his voice speaking out against the practice of targeted sanctions, which were used as a political tool. We did not hear him protest decisions that were met with accusations of corruption and extortion of bribes from businesses. On the contrary, as a member of the Cabinet of Ministers, he was part of the system that made those decisions.

And only now, after his resignation and after his candidacy was not resubmitted for the post of defense minister, has Mykhailo Fedorov delivered what is essentially a policy speech.

But even this speech left a sense that something was left unsaid.

Fedorov says Ukraine needs elections. Fine. But how can democratic elections be held in the midst of a major war?

We have repeatedly discussed the idea of electronic voting, particularly through “Diy.” However, electronic elections during wartime create at least two fundamental problems: vulnerability to enemy attacks and the inability to ensure the same level of result verification that a physical ballot provides.

In his book *On Tyranny*, Timothy Snyder emphasizes the importance of paper ballots among the rules for protecting democracy: democracy must have a physical trace that can be verified and recounted.

How can this be ensured during wartime? How will soldiers on the front lines vote? What about the millions of Ukrainians abroad? What about people in temporarily occupied territories? How can we guarantee a level playing field for political competition, freedom of campaigning, the opposition’s access to the media, and the security of polling stations under rocket and drone attacks?

Fedorov’s speech offers no answers to these questions.

And this brings us to the main point.

Any political discussions in modern Ukraine are possible only thanks to the men and women in uniform of the Ukrainian army who are holding the front lines. It is precisely because of them that we can develop political strategies, debate poll numbers, parties, and upcoming elections behind the lines.

But the needs of the people in the trenches must remain the state’s top priority.

I won’t speculate or speak on behalf of the military about their attitude toward replacing some politicians with others. But even according to Maslow’s classic hierarchy of needs, the need for physical safety is more fundamental than all subsequent needs. Therefore, any discussion about elections must begin with an answer to the question of national security.

There is another factor that cannot be ignored.

The demand for elections in Ukraine regularly appears in Russian scenarios for a so-called “peaceful settlement.” The reason is obvious: the Kremlin calculates that an election campaign during wartime will exacerbate internal conflicts, sow discord among Ukrainians, and weaken the state from within.

What Russia cannot achieve on the battlefield, it will try to achieve through internal destabilization.

Elections divide society even in peacetime. And elections held amid rocket attacks will inevitably turn the issue of war and peace into the main subject of political bargaining. The winner will be whoever most convincingly sells the simplest promise—a quick end to the war—to the public. And then the old refrain, “We just need to stop shooting,” could very quickly be given new life.

But there is another contradiction in Fedorov’s own words.

An address to the people by a dismissed minister is a popular genre. However, when a person who has been a member of every one of Zelenskyy’s governments from day one suddenly speaks of some “unknown forces” that have made personal loyalty—rather than professionalism—the main criterion for appointments, a natural question arises: where has this person been for the past seven years?

Fedorov did not observe this system from the sidelines.

He was part of it.

He helped create it.

Yes, this system truly needs radical changes. But changing it in the midst of a major war through an election campaign is an extremely dangerous experiment. And it’s especially surprising to hear calls to dismantle the system only after a person has lost their position within it.

This raises a legitimate question: if elections cannot be held right now, then how can we address the inefficiency of government administration that Fedorov speaks of—and with which it is indeed hard to disagree?

The answer is perhaps less dramatic than a campaign.

For everyone to work honestly and responsibly in their respective roles.

Hold the government accountable.

Criticize not just individuals, but specific decisions and processes.

Proposing alternatives.

Support the military.

Defend independent institutions.

And not remain silent when the government, even during wartime, makes decisions that may restrict democratic rights and freedoms.

Because democracy is not just about elections.

It is the daily accountability of the government to society, the rule of law, the independence of institutions, freedom of speech, and the right of citizens to hold the government accountable.

It is precisely these democratic values that we are defending today against Russia.

And we must defend them not only after a resignation.

But also when you’re in power, when you’re in the opposition, and when you’re not a politician but a civic activist or a responsible citizen

Source