Photo Credit:Free image, Pixabay license.
Pixabay
Volodomyr Zelenskyy's authoritarian drift and the West's blind spot.For years, the Biden-Harris administration and the legacy media have insisted that Volodymyr Zelenskyy is a valiant defender of democracy. The narrative has been relentless—from the halls of Congress to the editorial pages of newspapers on both sides of the Atlantic: Zelenskyy is a modern Churchill, courageously leading his people against tyranny.
Then Donald Trump did what he always does—he said the quiet part out loud:
‘A Dictator without Elections, Zelenskyy better move fast or he is not going to have a Country left,’ Trump wrote on social media, adding that Ukraine’s leader ‘has done a terrible job.’
The media predictably erupted, rushing to “fact-check” and vehemently condemn the remark. Legacy outlets didn’t just downplay Trump’s statement; they chastised it, invoking standard Beltway talking points about martial law and wartime governance.
Yet, while Trump’s blunt assessment jarred Washington’s foreign policy elite, it wasn’t without merit.
Zelenskyy is not a dictator in the classical sense. He is an authoritarian who has systematically consolidated power. The Russo-Ukrainian War has been a tragedy of unimaginable scale for the Ukrainian people, and Zelenskyy has faced extraordinary pressures. But at the same time, he has used the crisis to cement his authority in ways beyond wartime necessity—silencing opposition, controlling the media, and indefinitely postponing elections.
As Ted Galen Carpenter outlined in The American Conservative:
Under his rule, the Ukrainian government has outlawed nearly a dozen opposition parties, stifled the press, launched a campaign against uncooperative churches, and has conducted a program of arbitrary imprisonment, torture, and assassination.
This is a far cry from the Western media’s glowing portrayal of Zelenskyy as a democratic hero.
Ukraine’s Democratic Backsliding Didn’t Start with the War
The idea that Zelenskyy was ever a guardian of liberal democracy is a convenient Western illusion. Long before Russian troops crossed the border, Ukraine’s government was already displaying autocratic tendencies.
Freedom House’s 2022 report ranked Ukraine as only “partly free,” scoring 61 out of 100 points. Human Rights Watch’s 2021 report detailed disturbing abuses by Ukrainian government forces… “including arbitrary detentions, torture or ill-treatment.”
Journalists and media workers faced harassment and threats simply for reporting on corruption or government mismanagement. The censorship, political purges, and suppression of dissent that Zelenskyy escalated during wartime had already taken root well before February 2022.
The difference now? The war gave Zelenskyy the ultimate excuse.
A Stark Contrast to American Wartime Elections
Defenders of Zelenskyy’s decision to postpone elections often argue that wartime elections are impractical, even dangerous. That argument collapses under even a cursory glance at American history.
The United States has held elections during wartime—even in moments of profound national crisis.
None of these elections were held under ideal conditions. Yet, they proceeded because America understood that suspending representative democracy in a crisis posed a greater danger than holding elections during war.
If Zelenskyy were indeed a democratic statesman, he would embrace democracy even in crisis and not use crisis as a pretext to erode democracy itself.
The Churchill Comparison: A Historical Farce
Perhaps the most insidious defense of Zelenskyy’s actions is the constant comparison to Winston Churchill’s wartime leadership. The claim? Britain also delayed elections during World War II, so Ukraine’s situation is no different.
This is either a deliberate distortion or a case of sheer historical ignorance—but either way, it is dangerously misleading.
Britain’s delay of elections in World War II was not a unilateral power grab. Churchill led a wartime coalition government that included opposition figures, notably appointing Labour leader Clement Attlee as Deputy Prime Minister.
Political dissent was not crushed—it was brought into the government, ensuring national unity rather than division.
Ukraine’s wartime government may have a constitutional basis for delaying elections, but that does not justify the outright suppression of dissent—especially when the delay itself is decided through a parliamentary vote in which opposition parties have already been banned.
Zelenskyy has ensured that those who might challenge him politically cannot meaningfully participate in governance, allowing him to rule unchallenged.
If the British experience is to be invoked, it should be done honestly. Churchill ensured political inclusivity during a national crisis, while Zelenskyy’s government purged opposition rather than incorporating it.
The idea that Zelenskyy is some modern-day Churchill is not only historically illiterate but also insulting to the principles Churchill fought to defend.
The Ukrainian People Deserve Better
The West’s double standard is impossible to ignore. The EU routinely lectures Hungary and Poland about democratic backsliding, yet Ukraine gets a free pass as it cancels elections and jails dissidents.
As Carpenter put it:
Members of the West’s pro-Ukraine lobby must stop portraying Zelensky as a heroic figure and a democratic martyr. He is nothing of the sort. At best, he is a gullible fool that pro-war NATO officials have used for their own cynical agenda to knock Russia out of the ranks of the world’s major powers. At worst, he has been a willing accomplice in that campaign at horrific cost to his own country.
Make no mistake: The Ukrainian people deserve freedom. They deserve the right to self-determination. They deserve free and fair elections.
And they deserve all of this not just in times of peace but in times of war. True electoral freedom is not a luxury reserved for moments of stability, ease, or convenience—it is the foundation of a free nation.
Freedom is greater than any one man. No war, no government, and no leader—not in Ukraine, not anywhere—should stand in its way.
Charlton Allen is an attorney, former chief executive officer, and chief judicial officer of the North Carolina Industrial Commission. He is the founder of the Madison Center for Law & Liberty, Inc., editor of The American Salient, and the host of the Modern Federalist podcast. X: @CharltonAllenNC
<img alt="Free image, Pixabay license." captext="Pixabay” src=”https://conservativenewsbriefing.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/the-grand-prince-of-kyiv.jpg”>
Image: Free image, Pixabay license.
