A Ceasefire on Their Terms: How Trump and Putin Plan to Remove Zelenskyy and Reshape Ukraine
The fallout from a public argument between Zelenskyy and Trump on television has intensified Ukraine's political crisis. The exchange, which was widely covered in international media, appears to have been engineered by Trump and his allies, particularly J.D. Vance, to frame Zelenskyy as unwilling to pursue peace with Russia. By creating this narrative, Trump and his administration have laid the groundwork to justify removing Zelenskyy from power once a ceasefire is established. The argument, amplified by U.S. right-wing media and Russian propaganda, was strategically designed to create the impression that Zelenskyy is the primary obstacle to peace. This framing allows both Trump and Putin to position a post-war Ukrainian election as an opportunity to ‘course correct’ by supporting a leader who is more ‘reasonable’ - one who will align with their shared geopolitical and economic interests.
Following this confrontation, Trump halted all U.S. military aid to Ukraine, leaving Zelenskyy in an increasingly vulnerable position. Facing growing pressure, Zelenskyy may be forced to agree to a mineral-rights deal with the hope of securing some form of security guarantee from the United States.
With America aligning with Russia and insisting Ukraine hold elections, Washington and Moscow appear poised to dictate the terms of a ceasefire, leaving Ukraine with little choice but to accept. Once the ceasefire is in place, the U.S. is expected to apply increased pressure on Ukraine to hold elections. Trump has previously suggested that Ukraine should move toward elections, but Zelenskyy has insisted it is not possible while the war continues. However, with a ceasefire in place, Washington is likely to push harder, seeing it as an opportunity to replace Zelenskyy with a more pliable leader who aligns with both U.S. and Russian interests.
Beneath the surface of this diplomatic push lies a significant threat: the deliberate manipulation of Ukraine’s post-war elections by both Russia and the U.S. With Trump and Putin aligned in their objectives, while no election has been officially called, the push for one is being shaped not by the will of the Ukrainian people, but by the geopolitical ambitions of foreign powers. If this interference goes unchecked, Ukraine's sovereignty will be profoundly weakened, altering the nation’s trajectory for decades and setting a dangerous precedent for the future of democratic governance worldwide.
America and Russia’s Alignment: A Forced Ceasefire and a Rigged Election
With America and Russia now appearing to be aligned on Ukraine, the next phase of the war is increasingly dictated by their shared interests. The priority for both Washington and Moscow is to push Ukraine into a ceasefire that benefits them. The Trump administration, having halted military aid to Kyiv, has left Zelenskyy with little room to manoeuvre. A ceasefire dictated by the U.S. and Russia would likely recognize Russian control over large portions of eastern Ukraine, formalizing territorial losses that Ukraine had been resisting for years.
The pressure on Ukraine does not end with the ceasefire. Once hostilities are frozen under terms set by Moscow and Washington, the U.S. will insist that Ukraine holds elections, presenting it as a necessary step toward stability. However, with Trump and Putin both wanting a leader in Kyiv who will serve their shared economic and geopolitical goals, this election will not be free or fair. Rather, it will be an opportunity for both powers to install a candidate who legitimizes Russia’s territorial claims while ensuring U.S. companies gain economic access to Ukraine’s remaining resources.
By forcing Ukraine to the negotiating table under conditions it cannot refuse, and then imposing an election shaped by foreign influence, America and Russia will have effectively removed Kyiv’s agency over its future. Ukraine’s sovereignty is not just being undermined militarily but politically and economically as well.
Control over these resources is no longer just an economic concern but a defining aspect of Ukraine’s strategic position. If Kyiv fails to secure a balanced resource policy, it risks becoming entirely dependent on foreign powers, with Russia controlling the occupied east and the U.S. influencing the rest. Russia, in particular, may seek to undermine Western investments, either through direct intervention or by supporting political candidates who oppose Western-backed economic projects (Galeotti, 2022).
Ukraine's remaining mineral reserves outside Russian-controlled territories are now a focal point for international competition. The European Union has signed agreements to secure Ukrainian lithium for its battery production needs, while Chinese companies have expressed interest in rare earth elements. Ukraine’s domestic mining industry, however, remains underdeveloped compared to its vast potential. A lack of domestic investment and oversight could allow foreign companies - whether Western, Russian, or Chinese - to control Ukraine’s resource policies, undermining its economic sovereignty.
Ukraine must decide whether it will fight to reclaim resource-rich territories or accept a reality where Russia retains control over much of the country’s wealth. This dynamic makes the upcoming elections critical, not only for political sovereignty but also for the long-term economic future of Ukraine. The leader who emerges from the post-war elections will likely dictate whether Ukraine aligns more closely with the West or remains a fractured state caught between Russian and American interests.
Geopolitical Interests and Potential Candidate Profiles
Recent reports indicate that Trump allies have already engaged in secret talks with Ukrainian opposition figures, including Yulia Tymoshenko and Petro Poroshenko, to discuss potential leadership changes post-ceasefire (Politico, 2025). These discussions suggest that preparations are already underway to ensure that a new Ukrainian leader will align with both U.S. and Russian interests. If Ukraine is forced into an election, these figures, who have histories of political manoeuvring and shifting alliances, could emerge as the preferred candidates backed by Washington and Moscow.
Ukraine’s post-war elections will be shaped by competing international interests, particularly from Russia and the United States. However, unlike in previous geopolitical conflicts where Washington and Moscow found themselves at odds, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin appear to be working toward the same objectives in Ukraine. Their shared goal is to secure a Ukrainian leader who will align with their respective interests while maintaining a façade of democratic legitimacy.
For the United States, a post-war Ukraine presents a major economic opportunity. Ukraine’s vast reserves of lithium, titanium, and rare earth elements are crucial for American industries, particularly in the growing electric vehicle and renewable energy sectors. A friendly Ukrainian government that grants favourable mining rights to U.S. companies would ensure American access to these valuable resources.
For Russia, the primary goal remains geopolitical. Moscow seeks to consolidate its hold over Donbas and Crimea while simultaneously pulling Ukraine back into its sphere of influence. A Ukraine that is neutral, if not outright sympathetic to Russia, would allow Putin to achieve his longstanding goal of preventing full Ukrainian integration into Western economic and security structures. This means ensuring that Kyiv is led by a government willing to recognize Russian control over occupied territories and ease sanctions and military pressure on Moscow.
The convergence of these objectives creates an unprecedented situation where both Trump’s America and Putin’s Russia would benefit from the same political outcome in Ukraine: the installation of a leader who prioritizes economic deals with the U.S. while acquiescing to Russian territorial claims and security concerns.
Such a candidate will not be neutral but rather someone who fully aligns with the objectives of both Trump and Putin. They will likely frame themselves as a 'pragmatic leader' who can secure economic recovery through cooperation with the U.S. while promoting ‘peace’ through diplomatic concessions to Russia. Their campaign could focus on rebuilding Ukraine, securing investment, and prioritizing economic stability over continued conflict. However, beneath the surface, such a leader might serve as a Trojan horse, steering Ukraine away from its Western trajectory and legitimizing a geopolitical realignment that benefits both Moscow and Washington.
Cybersecurity and Disinformation Threats
Modern elections are not solely decided at the ballot box; they are also fought in the digital space. Russia’s proven track record of cyber warfare, including interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election (Mueller, 2019), raises serious concerns for Ukraine’s post-war democracy. Cyberattacks on electoral infrastructure, hacking of government databases, and social media manipulation could all be deployed to undermine public trust and tilt election results in a preferred direction.
Disinformation will likely play a central role. Russia has mastered the use of propaganda, utilizing state-controlled media, troll farms, and fake news networks to spread misleading narratives (Polyakova & Meserole, 2019). In a post-war Ukraine, the information landscape could become a battleground where narratives about Western ‘exploitation,’ economic hardship, and war fatigue are used to sway voters toward a Russia-friendly candidate.
Ukraine has taken steps to strengthen its cybersecurity defences, with Western allies providing financial and technical support for election security. However, the country remains vulnerable, as Russian-aligned groups continue targeting Ukrainian institutions, testing new cyber tactics that could be deployed more aggressively in a post-war election.
Past cyberattacks on Ukraine provide a glimpse of what may come. The 2017 NotPetya cyberattack, widely attributed to Russian actors, crippled Ukraine’s government institutions, banks, and critical infrastructure, demonstrating the extent to which Ukraine’s digital space is under siege (Greenberg, 2019). A similar attack during an election cycle could paralyze voter databases, disrupt election monitoring, or spread chaos through misinformation.
To counter these threats, Ukraine must significantly expand its cybersecurity infrastructure. Investments in digital resilience, media literacy campaigns, and partnerships with Western cybersecurity firms will be crucial. Additionally, independent election monitoring bodies must be granted full access to oversee digital election security, ensuring transparency and countering efforts to manipulate results through cyberattacks.
Conclusion
If Ukraine’s post-war elections are compromised, its sovereignty could be jeopardized under the guise of democratic legitimacy. A pro-Russian, pro-Trump candidate would signal a stark new reality: one where geopolitical rivals manipulate democratic institutions to achieve their goals without resorting to open conflict. This would not only reshape Ukraine’s future but also set a dangerous precedent for global democracy, showing that great powers can dictate the political destinies of smaller nations through coercion rather than genuine electoral will.
Beyond immediate political concerns, the long-term consequences of a compromised election in Ukraine would be severe. A government installed through external manipulation could undermine Ukraine’s ability to pursue independent foreign policy, weakening its prospects for European integration and security cooperation. Additionally, any perception that the election was rigged or influenced by foreign actors could lead to significant domestic unrest, fuelling internal divisions and further destabilizing an already fragile nation.
The international community must remain vigilant to ensure that Ukraine’s democratic transition remains free, fair, and independent, preventing it from becoming a pawn in a larger geopolitical chess game. Robust election monitoring, transparency measures, cybersecurity investments, and diplomatic deterrents are essential to preventing foreign influence. Without decisive action now, Ukraine risks losing not only its sovereignty but also its democratic integrity, setting the stage for further conflicts and authoritarian encroachment in the years to come.
References
Corrales, J., (2020) ‘Fixing Democracy: Why Constitutional Change Often Fails to Enhance Democracy in Latin America.’ Oxford University Press.
Galeotti, M., (2022) ‘Putin's Wars: From Chechnya to Ukraine.’ Osprey Publishing.
Greenberg, A., (2019) ‘Sandworm: A New Era of Cyberwar and the Hunt for the Kremlin’s Most Dangerous Hackers.’ Doubleday.
Kuzio, T., (2020) ‘Crisis in Russian Studies? Nationalism, Imperialism, Racism and War.’ E-International Relations Publishing.
Mueller, R.S., (2019) ‘Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.’ U.S. Department of Justice.
Polyakova, A. & Meserole, C., (2019) ‘Exporting Digital Authoritarianism: The Russian and Chinese Models.’ Brookings Institution.
European Parliament, (2021) ‘Foreign Interference in Democratic Processes: Lessons from the 2019 European Parliament Elections.’ European Union Publications Office.
OSCE, (2023) ‘Strengthening Election Security in Eastern Europe. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.’
Rosenberg, E., (2022). Digital Warfare: How Cyberattacks Have Redefined Global Politics. HarperCollins.
Smith, J., (2023) ‘Democracy at Risk: The Global Struggle Against Election Interference. Cambridge University Press.’
Dettmer, J. (2025) ‘Trump allies in secret talks with Ukrainian opposition ahead of possible elections.’ Politico, 6 March. Available at: https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-allies-secret-talks-volodymyr-zelenskyy-opposition-ukraine-elections-yulia-tymoshenko-petro-poroshenko/ [Accessed 6 Mar. 2025].