By Nina Bachkatov
The American intervention in Venezuela has reverberated far beyond Latin America, including in Ukraine, and was the unspoken backdrop to the 6 January gathering in Paris of 35 representatives of the Coalition of the Willing. The sight of Nicolás Maduro in shackles before the world’s cameras was greeted with quiet satisfaction in Kyiv, if only because he had been a Russian ally. Some Ukrainians briefly imagined Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin gripped by the fear that he, too, might one day share Maduro’s fate.
That moment of schadenfreude was short-lived. What if Donald Trump were to send marines not to Moscow but to Kyiv, to depose what he might label an “illegal president” of a “corrupt country” unwilling to accept his grand peace designs?
In the hubris following Maduro’s arrest, president Trump listed a number of places where he believes American interests warrant military intervention. These included other “terrorist” states in Latin America, Iran and even Greenland. Ukraine was conspicuously absent, a silence that may simply reflect its diminished standing among US strategic priorities. President Volodymyr Zelensky also faced a notably tepid European response, heavy on platitudes about international law, self-determination and support for a peaceful transition. Most European leaders appear anxious not to antagonise Trump — or to be left alone footing the bill for Ukraine. They are also mindful that destabilisation in Latin America would hardly provide an ideal backdrop for the signing of the Mercosur agreement scheduled for 12 January.
A delayed reshuffle
By a coincidence of timing, on 2 January Zelensky had announced a “substantial overhaul” of his team, aimed at making Ukraine more resilient under wartime conditions while preparing for reconstruction through diplomacy and military strength. The changes were long overdue, following weeks of resignations and dismissals that culminated in the departure of Andriy Yermak on 28 November.
Yermak’s tight grip on power had made him unpopular, yet his absence quickly proved to be more than a routine change at the top of the presidential administration. Ukrainian analysts point out that he personally managed a vast share of the operational workload within Zelensky’s team, and that no one else possesses comparable experience or authority to resolve complex political and security challenges.
His departure left Zelensky more exposed to corruption scandals, which he took nearly five months to address in full. By late December, only 19 per cent of Ukrainians believed that he had been unaware of corruption within his inner circle. With no official information about Yermak’s whereabouts, some speculate that he remains in the suburbs of Kyiv and has quietly resumed contact with the president.
More tellingly, several prominent candidates approached by Zelensky initially declined senior posts, preferring to remain in their existing roles rather than step into an uncertain political landscape. Kyrylo Budanov wanted to remain head of military intelligence rather than take over the presidential administration. Vasyl Maliuk clung even longer to his post at the helm of the SBU before eventually accepting the role of secretary of the National Security and Defence Council. Defence minister Denys Shmyhal was similarly reluctant to move from defence to the energy ministry.
Few contest the growing prominence of intelligence services in modern warfare. Budanov and Maliuk are widely regarded as heroic figures for the audacity of their operations against Russian targets and in the Black Sea. Many of the new appointees are respected professionals in drones and disinformation. Yet there is a widening gap between technological sophistication and the grim reality of soldiers fighting in freezing, waterlogged trenches with no rotation in sight.
Political stress tests
There is also a strong sense that Zelensky is deliberately placing popular figures — and potential rivals — into powerful but less visible roles, ahead of eventual parliamentary and presidential elections. The protracted nomination saga suggests that he has been more shaken by recent corruption scandals than his allies had assumed.
At the same time, Ukraine’s political system is entering uncharted territory, particularly in terms of the evolving relationship between the revamped National Security and Defence Council, the new government and parliament. The latter will provide the first real test, as it must approve several of the appointments. Deputies are reported to be deeply demoralised, Zelensky’s party is in disarray, and there is no clarity over the timing of elections.
Prime minister Yuliia Svyrydenko, once a protégé of Mr Yermak, must now demonstrate that she is more than an executor of others’ ideas. While Yermak’s position was under threat, she placed many of her own allies in senior posts across key ministries. She now needs to establish herself as a genuine centre of gravity within the system.
The most surprising appointment came on 5 January, with the naming of Chrystia Freeland as Zelensky’s adviser on economic development. A former deputy prime minister of Canada and now Ottawa’s special envoy for Ukraine’s reconstruction, she is emblematic of the postwar North American Ukrainian diaspora: highly influential and fiercely nationalist.
The Paris test
Many feared that these changes — some undertaken under duress — would weaken Ukraine’s defensive capacity and undermine its diplomatic weight. The first test came in Paris on 6 January, during the 17th meeting in 11 months of the Coalition of the Willing. In preparation, Zelensky had outlined a two-track strategy: pursuing diplomacy to end the war, while preparing to defend Ukraine militarily should Russia block any serious proposals.
He appeared before the media alongside Emmanuel Macron and Keir Starmer to sign a “declaration of intent” under which France and the UK would station 30,000 troops in Ukraine following a ceasefire. German chancellor Friedrich Merz later joined them for a press conference in which each leader appeared primarily to address domestic audiences.
More significantly, the meeting also included Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy, and Jared Kushner, his chief negotiator and son-in-law. They confirmed that the US would oversee the deployment of European troops and, using its surveillance and communications capabilities, monitor any violations of a ceasefire and respond accordingly.
During his press conference, Zelensky referred pointedly to a “protocol” — a term carrying more weight than another “declaration of intent” — and later expressed frustration at the lack of clarity over security guarantees. Nevertheless, he returns to Kyiv with something tangible to present as a reinforcement of Ukraine’s position in forthcoming negotiations with Russia.
For now, both sides are intensifying military operations, each seeking to strengthen its hand on the battlefield before diplomacy takes over.
Top of Form
Bottom of Form