Random Political Joke - I asked my senator for transparency. He sent me a 3-minute TikTok and a 600-page redacted PDF.
Ukraine
President Володимир Зеленський (Volodymyr Zelenskyy)
Impeachment Estimate
Updated: 2026-01-06
Model Risk: 5%
Public Impeachment Search Heat: 0%
Regime Risk: 29% ? Regime Risk is completely separate from the impeachment estimate and is not used to calculate it. Regime Risk is an assessment of the overall stability of the current government regime, based on factors such as political unrest, economic instability, and social tensions. A high Regime Risk indicates a greater likelihood of significant political upheaval, which could lead to changes in leadership through means other than formal impeachment processes.
30-Day Impeachment Trend
30-Day Regime Risk Trend
Latest News
Zelenskyy forces out Ukrainian spy chief who led daring raids against Russia - The Guardian
Volodymyr Zelenskyy removes Ukraine’s top spy in reshuffle - Financial Times
Progress for Ukraine talks in Paris uncertain with U.S. focus shifting to Venezuela - NPR
Ukraine updates: Zelenskyy seeks 'concrete results' in Paris - DW
Quick Summary of Ukraine & Volodymyr Zelenskyy
Ukraine and its President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, have been at the center of global attention since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, but domestic political dynamics have occasionally sparked discussions about accountability and governance. While there have been no serious impeachment proceedings against Zelenskyy, his leadership has faced scrutiny, particularly regarding wartime decision-making, corruption concerns, and the balance between executive authority and democratic oversight. In late 2023, reports emerged about internal tensions within Ukraine’s government, including calls from some lawmakers for greater transparency in military procurement and reforms to address graft. However, these discussions have largely remained within political circles, as the overwhelming focus remains on the war effort and national unity. The topic of impeachment has surfaced sporadically, often tied to broader debates about Ukraine’s democratic resilience under martial law. Zelenskyy’s administration has dismissed such talk as politically motivated or distracting from the country’s defense priorities. International observers, including Western allies, have generally supported his leadership, emphasizing the need for stability during the conflict. While Ukraine’s constitution allows for impeachment on grounds of treason or other serious crimes, the process is complex and unlikely to gain traction amid the ongoing war. Instead, discussions about accountability have shifted toward post-war governance and institutional reforms to strengthen Ukraine’s democracy.Deep Dive Into Ukraine & Volodymyr Zelenskyy
Civil–military relations and security-sector debates
The full-scale war has elevated the political salience of the armed forces and security services, making civil–military relations a focal point of debate. Zelenskyy, as commander-in-chief, must balance operational autonomy for military leadership with political accountability and strategic communication to domestic and international audiences. Publicized disagreements between the presidential office and senior military figures, high-profile changes in command, and controversies over mobilization policy and material provision for the armed forces have highlighted underlying tensions about roles, responsibilities, and long-term security planning. Although the military remains formally under civilian control and there is no open rupture or coup dynamic, the combination of existential war, immense societal reliance on the army, and personalized leadership struggles creates a high level of structural tension in civil–military relations.
International alignment, expectations, and dependency
Ukraine’s foreign policy is characterized by strong alignment with Western partners, a clear orientation toward EU and NATO integration, and intensive diplomatic activity by Zelenskyy and his team. International support—military, financial, and political—is essential for Ukraine’s war effort and economic survival, and Zelenskyy’s personal diplomacy is a major factor shaping external perceptions and aid flows. At the same time, dependence on external assistance creates vulnerability to shifts in foreign domestic politics, donor fatigue, and conditionalities related to reforms and anti-corruption. Domestic debates increasingly reflect concern about the reliability and sufficiency of Western support and about the trade-offs between rapid reform, wartime exigencies, and long-term sovereignty. These pressures generate sustained but still managed tension in Ukraine’s international positioning and in the expectations placed on Zelenskyy as the primary interlocutor with allied governments.
Media environment, information control, and wartime narratives
Ukraine’s media landscape operates under wartime constraints, including restrictions justified by national security, the pooling of major television channels into a unified telethon format, and strong messaging discipline from the presidential administration. Zelenskyy plays a central role in shaping public narratives about the war, international support, and internal political disputes, often using direct video addresses and social media. While independent and investigative media continue to function—especially in online formats—journalists and civil society actors have raised concerns about access to information, the narrowing of broadcast pluralism, and social pressure to avoid criticism that could be framed as undermining the war effort. These dynamics generate significant, though not yet crisis-level, tension between security-oriented communication strategies and liberal-pluralist media norms.
Polarization around leadership and war strategy
Ukrainian society remains comparatively unified on core war aims—defense of sovereignty and opposition to Russian aggression—and Volodymyr Zelenskyy retains a significant base of support as a wartime leader. However, as the war becomes protracted, public debates over mobilization, military leadership, corruption, and negotiations are increasingly personalized around Zelenskyy. Criticism from opposition figures, civil society actors, and some military representatives has become more open, particularly regarding the balance between civilian and military decision-making and the pace and transparency of reforms. While this has not yet produced systemic institutional deadlock or large-scale domestic unrest, it reflects a marked increase in political polarization compared with the early months of the full-scale invasion.
Social cohesion and wartime resilience
Despite immense strain from displacement, casualties, and economic disruption, social cohesion has remained relatively robust. Zelenskyy is a central symbolic figure in efforts to sustain morale, frame sacrifices as nationally meaningful, and project unity across linguistic, regional, and ethnic lines. Volunteer networks, local self-organization, and mutual aid have played a substantial role in maintaining a sense of solidarity. At the same time, fatigue, unequal distribution of war burdens, and grievances about living conditions and mobilization practices are increasingly visible, especially among internally displaced people, families of soldiers, and residents of frontline or frequently targeted regions. These tensions are notable but have not yet translated into a generalized breakdown of social order, hence a rating of moderate rather than high tension.
Trust in institutions and perceptions of governance
Trust in the presidency and the armed forces has generally remained higher than trust in other state institutions, and Zelenskyy’s personal role as a communicator and crisis manager has been central to sustaining that trust. However, concerns about corruption, selective justice, and the concentration of decision-making in the executive have re-emerged after an initial rally-around-the-flag period. High-profile dismissals and anti-corruption investigations, which Zelenskyy has used to signal commitment to reform and to respond to domestic and international pressure, simultaneously demonstrate institutional responsiveness and reinforce public awareness of governance shortcomings. Tensions between the presidency and some independent institutions, as well as debates over the scope of wartime emergency powers, produce a level of institutional strain that exceeds routine democratic contestation but does not yet approach systemic collapse.
Impeachment Color Legend
RED >= 50%ORANGE >= 34%
YELLOW >= 18%
GREEN < 18%