Russia Exploits Ukraine’s Political Turmoil Over Fedorov’s Dismissal and Wartime Election Call
President Volodymyr Zelensky’s dismissal of Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov has thrown Ukrainian politics into one of its most serious crises since the start of the full-scale war, and the Kremlin is already exploiting the fallout for propaganda purposes, according to a new report from the Kyiv Independent. The firing of Fedorov, a popular figure widely seen as a reformer, triggered street protests in Kyiv and an extraordinary public appeal from Fedorov himself for Ukraine to prepare for wartime elections. But beyond the immediate political shock, the report says, the episode has offered a preview of Russia’s playbook for fueling Ukraine’s internal divisions. Over the past several weeks, fake articles, fabricated videos, and manipulative claims have spread across social media and pro-Kremlin channels, all feeding into Moscow’s long-standing portrayal of Ukraine as hopelessly divided and its government illegitimate. The report draws on interviews with disinformation researchers and an analysis of Russian state media to show how these narratives are constructed. In particular, Russian propaganda has sought to portray the protests that followed Fedorov’s dismissal in two contradictory ways: as a Western-orchestrated farce and as genuine evidence that public support for the war effort is collapsing. This deliberate contradiction is typical of Russian disinformation tactics. Alyona Hurkivska, a political scientist and disinformation expert at the Kuras Institute of Political and Ethnic Studies at Ukraine’s National Academy of Sciences, told the Kyiv Independent that the goal is not so much to convince audiences of any specific claim, but rather to “undermine trust in political actors, institutions, and, ultimately, the democratic process itself.” The report warns that this disinformation campaign is likely to intensify as Ukraine cautiously begins discussing what wartime elections would mean. Whenever and however elections are eventually held, the report concludes, Ukraine must brace for a Russian disinformation onslaught.
The report details several specific examples of the disinformation that has emerged in recent weeks. One fabricated video bore the logo of the Ukrainian news agency UNIAN and discussed a nonexistent Reuters article claiming that President Zelensky had plotted to assassinate Fedorov. Russian propagandists also spread false claims that a wartime election had already been scheduled for Dec. 1, and that Zelensky’s surprise cabinet reshuffle was merely a tactic to delay the vote. These fakes were designed to intensify the sense of chaos and confusion surrounding Ukraine’s political leadership. They were soon followed by a far more significant development: on Aug. 18, Fedorov himself said that Ukraine should prepare to hold wartime elections, breaking a taboo that had persisted throughout the war. According to Olha Yurkova, co-founder of the Ukrainian fact-checking organization StopFake, the statement did not, by itself, lead to a surge of outright fabricated news. What happened instead, she said, was a “rapid amplification and manipulative reframing of election-related narratives in Russian state and pro-Kremlin media.” The unifying theme of those narratives is one that the Kremlin has used against Ukraine for years: that Ukraine’s government is illegitimate and that the country is fractured beyond repair. By taking a genuine political debate and twisting it, Russian media are able to present Ukraine’s internal disagreements not as the normal workings of a democratic society, but as proof that the Ukrainian state is failing. The report emphasizes that this approach is especially dangerous because it blends real events with half-truths and invented details. It becomes difficult for audiences, both inside and outside Ukraine, to distinguish between authentic political conflict and the distortions spread by the Kremlin. The goal, as Hurkivska explained, is to erode confidence in Ukrainian institutions and ensure that whatever political process unfolds, many observers will see it as inherently suspect.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov was quick to respond to Fedorov’s election call with language that neatly encapsulated Moscow’s strategy. “Yes, the Kyiv regime, its quasi-political arena, is quite heterogeneous. We see that many are trying to fish in troubled waters; some are trying to invoke democracy and democratic norms, while others don’t even try,” Peskov said, according to the report. He also repeated Moscow’s familiar assertion that Ukraine’s wartime suspension of elections means Zelensky lacks legitimacy. Zelensky’s constitutionally designated five-year term ended in May 2024, but Ukraine’s legislation prohibits holding elections while martial law is in force. The Kremlin has long used this legal reality to argue that Zelensky is not a legitimate representative of Ukraine in peace negotiations, and Russian propagandists have regularly cast him as a “dictator” or a “puppet of the West.” The renewed debate over elections gave pro-Kremlin media another chance to push those themes. Many channels alleged that Zelensky was deliberately prolonging the war in order to stay in power, a claim that resonates with Russian audiences but has no basis in the democratic procedures that actually govern Ukraine’s elections. Rybar, a pro-war Russian Telegram channel with more than 1.5 million followers, claimed that Fedorov’s call for elections “questions the legitimacy of Zelensky himself as head of state”—even though Fedorov never made such a statement about Zelensky’s legitimacy. Yurkova pointed to this as a textbook example of how disinformation works. “A real statement is selectively quoted and shifted in meaning until it becomes evidence for a pre-existing narrative,” she said. The implication is that Russia does not need to invent every story from scratch; it can simply take real developments, strip them of context, and reinterpret them to fit the Kremlin’s preferred storyline.
The report also documents a more elaborate conspiracy theory promoted by Rybar and echoed elsewhere in pro-Kremlin media. According to this theory, Fedorov’s call for elections and a separate anti-corruption investigation into a former deputy head of Zelensky’s office are both part of a U.S.-orchestrated pressure campaign against Kyiv. The Telegram channel wrote that “the unwillingness of Western sponsors to personally remove Zelensky does not mean the absence of fatigue with him” and that, in the event of the Ukrainian leader’s elimination, the West “may sooner heave a sigh of relief than begin searching for those responsible.” These claims serve a double purpose. They not only delegitimize Zelensky, but also cast any potential alternative to him, including Fedorov, as a Western tool rather than an authentic Ukrainian political figure. In this narrative, both the president and his main challenger are mere pawns on a chessboard controlled by Washington. Yurkova argues that this undermines the very idea of Ukrainian political agency by portraying domestic competition as orchestrated from abroad. It is a way to tell both Russian and international audiences that Ukraine is not a real democracy, but a theater stage where scripts are written in foreign capitals. At the same time, Russian media are already preparing to dismiss the outcome of any future election. Hurkivska told the Kyiv Independent that Russian outlets are publishing analytical pieces claiming that any elections in Ukraine will be falsified, controlled by the regime, and ultimately change nothing. She said this messaging fits into a broader narrative line: whatever happens politically in Ukraine, the existing “regime” will remain in control. The goal is to create a sense of futility around democratic participation, so that even a free and fair vote would be widely perceived as meaningless by audiences exposed to Russian propaganda.
The idea of holding elections during wartime has long been resisted in Ukraine by activists, experts, much of the public, and politicians, including some who are strongly opposed to Zelensky. But the report identifies several factors that have brought the idea back into serious discussion. Ukraine’s parliament has shrunk and become increasingly inefficient; Zelensky has made a series of unpredictable personnel decisions; and corruption scandals have touched figures in the president’s inner circle. Fedorov, in his Aug. 18 appeal, pointed specifically to a “systematic crisis in governance” and to corruption as reasons for holding elections. Yet the practical obstacles remain enormous. Ukrainian law still prohibits holding elections during martial law. There are no security guarantees that would protect voters from Russian missile strikes. Millions of Ukrainians are living abroad or in occupied territories, and hundreds of thousands are serving in the armed forces, often without the ability to participate in a normal electoral process. Even if a ceasefire were achieved and technical problems solved, the report says, the past few years have given a clear taste of Russia’s playbook for future elections. Yurkova told the Kyiv Independent that Moscow will likely deploy a multi-layered strategy. It would include disinformation targeting specific candidates, the use of AI-generated media, and the amplification of divisive messages through social media. Russian propagandists could amplify narratives about fraud and Western interference, portray some candidates as the “party of war” and others as the “peace” alternative, and exploit genuine challenges related to voting by soldiers, displaced people, Ukrainians abroad, and citizens living under occupation. The security conditions under which elections would be held would themselves become a weapon, as Russia would seek to cast any imperfections in the voting process as evidence of illegitimacy.
Ultimately, the report argues, Russia’s aim is not simply to influence who wins an election, but to preserve the ability to challenge the entire election’s legitimacy after the fact. “The goal would be not only to influence the outcome, but also to preserve the ability to challenge its legitimacy afterward,” Yurkova said. This is consistent with the broader pattern of Russian disinformation since the full-scale invasion began. Moscow has repeatedly tried to depict Ukraine as a failed state, its leaders as Western puppets, and its democracy as a sham. The current political crisis over Fedorov’s dismissal and his call for elections offers a perfect opportunity to reinforce those themes. The report, published as part of the Fighting Against Conspiracy and Trolls (FACT) project under the EU Digital Media Observatory, was produced by the Kyiv Independent, with Martin Fornusek as one of the authors. It does not attempt to predict when or how elections might be held, but it warns that Ukraine and its international partners must prepare for a sustained disinformation campaign. The weeks since Fedorov’s ouster have already demonstrated how quickly real political events can be distorted and exploited. Fake articles, manipulated videos, and half-true commentary have blurred the line between fact and fiction, and the situation is likely to worsen as the election debate becomes more concrete. For Ukraine, the challenge is twofold: it must find a way to conduct credible elections under extraordinarily difficult conditions, and it must also defend the information space against a sophisticated Russian effort to delegitimize the vote and deepen divisions. The report’s conclusion is stark but straightforward: whenever and however elections are held, Ukraine must brace itself for a Russian disinformation onslaught designed to undermine the democratic process and weaken the country from within.
