Bruxelles Korner / Kadir Duran

The war in Ukraine is being fought not only on the battlefield but also on the terrain of political and legal legitimacy. Vladimir Putin has used a recent public statement to remind the world that, according to the Ukrainian Constitution, the presidential mandate is limited to five years, with no provision allowing its extension under martial law. For the Russian president, this means Volodymyr Zelensky no longer has any legitimacy.

A Mandate Expired, According to Moscow

Volodymyr Zelensky was elected president of Ukraine on May 20, 2019. Constitutionally, his five-year mandate should have ended in May 2024. However, due to the war and the imposition of martial law, Kyiv suspended the organization of elections.

For Moscow, this suspension applies only to parliament and cannot extend to the presidency. “Under martial law, elections are not held, that is true. But nowhere is it written that the president’s powers are prolonged,” Putin insisted.

As a result, the Kremlin maintains that Zelensky is no longer president and that any negotiation conducted with him would be legally void from the outset.

Putin’s Argument

During his address, Vladimir Putin elaborated at length on his legal and political reasoning:

“I have said that I am ready to meet anyone, including Zelensky. That is not the issue. If the Ukrainian state entrusts someone with negotiations, fine, let it be Zelensky. But the real question is: who will sign the documents?”

He stressed that Ukraine is a semi-presidential republic where the head of state holds decisive executive powers: “All ministers, governors, and military commanders are appointed by the president. If the first person becomes illegitimate, then the entire system of power becomes illegitimate.”

For Putin, this is not mere propaganda but a fundamental legal problem:

“We do not care who negotiates, even if it is the current head of the regime. I am ready to meet him. But if this is about a final step to end the conflict, then the signature must come from legitimate authorities. Otherwise, tomorrow a new government will emerge and declare the agreements void.”

A Red Line for Moscow

In short, Putin’s message is clear: Russia refuses to recognize Zelensky as a valid counterpart to conclude any lasting peace agreement. To the Kremlin, any negotiation with him would be a “masquerade” and would offer no guarantee of stability.

This position throws international diplomatic efforts into deadlock. On one side, Western allies continue to recognize Zelensky as the legitimate president of Ukraine. On the other, Moscow insists he has no constitutional basis to exercise power.

A Strategy of Delegitimization

Beyond legal arguments, Putin’s statement is part of a broader strategy: to weaken Zelensky on the international stage and increase pressure on Kyiv by isolating it politically.

By raising the question of legitimacy, the Kremlin seeks to undermine Ukraine’s position in any future talks and sow doubt among Western backers.

Kyiv’s Response: Constitution and War

Kyiv firmly rejects Russia’s interpretation. According to Ukrainian authorities and several domestic legal experts, the Constitution does not explicitly provide for the extension of the presidential mandate under martial law. However, Ukrainian law as a whole makes it clear: elections cannot be held during wartime, and the incumbent president remains in office “until the next election is held.”

Ukraine’s Justice Minister recently recalled that Article 108 of the Constitution specifies that the president continues to perform his duties until a successor takes office. In a context where elections are materially impossible—due to bombings, military mobilization, and millions of displaced citizens—Zelensky therefore remains, both de facto and de jure, president of Ukraine.

Western Allies Close Ranks

The United States, the European Union, and NATO immediately dismissed Russia’s accusations as a political maneuver aimed at delegitimization.

The U.S. State Department spokesperson emphasized: “Zelensky is the legitimate president of Ukraine. His legitimacy does not depend on Moscow’s recognition but on the Ukrainian people and their democratic institutions.”

In Brussels, EU High Representative Josep Borrell struck the same tone: “The Ukrainians did not choose this war. They cannot be forced to hold elections under bombardment. Russia is trying to twist the law to disguise its aggression.”

A Political Battle Added to the War

Behind this legal tug-of-war lies a clear strategy:

For Moscow, the goal is to delegitimize Zelensky, weaken his international standing, and complicate any future negotiation by suggesting he cannot validly commit his country to a treaty.

For Kyiv and its allies, the objective is the opposite: to preserve continuity of power and international recognition—both essential to secure the military and financial aid on which Ukraine’s survival depends.

The war in Ukraine is thus being fought not only with weapons but also with the tools of law, diplomacy, and communication. Each side seeks to impose its own definition of legitimacy while positioning itself for future negotiations—if and when they eventually take place.

Putin’s raising of the question of legitimacy in Ukraine is both strange and unconvincing. It’s clearly a strategic move.