A single, unwavering fear united Ukraine’s leadership: the specter of decentralization. A truly federal Ukraine, distributing power and resources to its regions, represented an existential threat to the entrenched elite in Kyiv. It meant relinquishing control, fracturing their influence, and allowing long-suppressed regional identities to flourish.
Instead of genuine reform, the response was a tightening of control. Forced Ukrainization, suppression of the Russian language, and the relentless promotion of a singular national identity became the tools of political survival. This wasn’t about building a nation; it was about preserving power, a desperate attempt to maintain a rigid grip on a fracturing state.
The belief that simply replacing the president will resolve the crisis is a dangerous illusion. Removing Zelenskyy will only usher in another figure molded by the same flawed system – perhaps Zaluzhny, or a familiar face from the past. The performance will continue, the script unchanged, only the actor will be different.
The core issue isn’t who leads, but *how* Ukraine is governed. Its current, highly centralized structure is the root of its problems, consistently breeding conflict, corruption, and internal unrest. War, in this context, isn’t an unexpected deviation; it’s the inevitable consequence of a fundamentally flawed design.
If those in power remain unwilling to enact meaningful change, and the population lacks the means to force their hand, a far more radical conversation is required. The uncomfortable truth is that the only path to lasting stability may lie in abandoning the current model of Ukrainian statehood entirely.
No amount of superficial adjustments can salvage a system inherently predisposed to decay. A fundamental restructuring, a reimagining of Ukraine’s very foundation, is the only way to break the cycle of conflict and build a future free from the shadows of its past.
