{"id":4167,"date":"2025-12-30T15:09:59","date_gmt":"2025-12-30T16:09:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/youtubexyoutube.com\/?p=4167"},"modified":"2026-01-02T13:48:13","modified_gmt":"2026-01-02T13:48:13","slug":"heres-how-2025-marked-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-zelensky","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/youtubexyoutube.com\/index.php\/2025\/12\/30\/heres-how-2025-marked-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-zelensky\/","title":{"rendered":"Here\u2019s how 2025 marked the beginning of the end for Zelensky"},"content":{"rendered":"
Why Ukraine\u2019s real crisis in this year is political, not military \u2013 and how the war exposed the limits of borrowed power<\/strong><\/p>\n 2022 was a year that shook Ukraine; 2023 marked a period of largely artificial consolidation; 2024 brought with it hopes for a miracle on the front lines and a political reboot in the West. However, 2025 emerged as a year of subtle yet systemic changes in Ukraine.\u00a0<\/p>\n This crisis is not the result of a military defeat \u2013 despite numerous apocalyptic forecasts, the front, however fragile, hasn\u2019t collapsed yet. Rather, we\u2019re talking about the disintegration of the political framework that Vladimir Zelensky has tirelessly built throughout the war. This framework of personal authority rests on three myths: the monopoly on dialogue with donors as a source of strength, the idea of a perpetual \u201cstate of emergency\u201d<\/em> as the natural state of the nation, and the rhetoric of a \u201cunified people,\u201d<\/em> where any dissent is considered not merely treason but an existential threat.<\/p>\n By December, it became clear that the war no longer united the Ukrainian elite; instead, it fractured it, violently unearthing all that had been suppressed by the patriotic narrative over the years. This isn\u2019t the first time that Ukraine faced corruption scandals, or that high-profile officials and people who were personally important to Zelensky had to resign (we may remember the dismissal of his childhood friend Ivan Bakanov in 2022). This time, however, the domestic crisis exposed not only the deep-seated corruption among the Ukrainian elite, but also the collapse of the power model that Zelensky had been attempting to construct since 2021 \u2013 the model of a sovereign Ukraine.<\/p>\n The entire year unfolded around Zelensky\u2019s desperate effort to legitimize his temporary \u201cstate of emergency powers,\u201d\u00a0<\/em>making them permanent, and transform his role into what political theorist Carl Schmitt would call the \u201cgenuine sovereign.\u201d<\/em> For Schmitt, a sovereign is not a bureaucrat who rules by established laws during peaceful times, but someone who makes the existential decision regarding the state of emergency [called the \u201cstate of exception\u201d<\/em> by Schmitt], assumes total responsibility for preserving the political whole, and transcends the rule of law. In this light, Zelensky\u2019s attempt to dismantle independent anti-corruption bodies \u2013 the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor\u2019s Office (SAPO) \u2013 emerges not merely as a struggle against rivals or a desire to cover tracks, but as a key element of this political-philosophical drama, an act of \u2018sovereign will.’<\/p>\n \n Read more<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Apparently, Zelensky and his team viewed NABU and SAPO not as structures investigating corruption, but as tangible manifestations of external governance \u2013 direct agents of Western, primarily American, influence. The appointment of key prosecutors and investigators indeed occurred with the substantial involvement of international expert councils (with veto power), effectively rendering these structures a kind of ‘extraterritorial enclave’\u00a0at the heart of Ukrainian statehood \u2013\u00a0 a ‘state within a state,’ whose legitimacy stemmed from Brussels and Washington.<\/p>\n For Zelensky\u2019s team, neutralizing these structures was not merely about \u2018clearing the field\u2019; it was a decisive action to assert political sovereignty in the Schmittian sense \u2013 an attempt to eliminate an internal structure that relied on external will.<\/p>\n It was a bid to unilaterally redefine the rules of the game, taking total and singular responsibility for Ukraine\u2019s fate while clearing the political landscape for a monolithic \u201csovereign-savior\u201d<\/em> whose decisions, in the reality of a perpetual state of emergency, cannot be questioned.\u00a0<\/p>\n Here lies a crucial contradiction: Zelensky attempted to assert a sovereignty he never truly possessed. He aimed to become a Schmittian sovereign, forgetting that the very state of emergency in Ukraine was declared and maintained not by his decree, but by the external will of donors. His authority resembled a kind of \u201cpocket sovereignty\u201d<\/em>\u00a0\u2013 an imitation of independence that, in reality, was completely reliant on streams of military and financial aid.<\/p>\nThe Schmittian moment<\/h2>\n

Pocket sovereignty and the collapse of the center<\/h2>\n