Even in times of war, discussion and debate are democratic assets

Politico analyzed whether it is possible to criticize the authorities of a country at war.

Should Ukrainians, or those who support Ukraine, refrain from publicly criticizing the country's authorities, especially President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, at this time of war? Should they stop from raising concerns about how the country is managed, how the war is being waged, or what the government did or did not do in the lead-up to Russia's invasion?

Is it disloyal to point out flaws in order to undermine public morale, provide propaganda fuel for the Kremlin, and harm the country in the eyes of Western allies, potentially jeopardizing support for Ukraine?

For some years now, the country's opposition politicians, civil society leaders, and certain members of the military have been grappling with this quandary on a daily basis. They further claim that Zelenskyy and his staff regard any criticism, even constructive commentary intended to correct errors, as an attempt to derail the war effort and destroy unity in Ukraine's hour of need.

Zelenskyy's supporters argue that in times of war, Ukraine requires a strong leader. In this time of peril, Zelenskyy and Ukraine must be viewed as inseparable. He is a figure of resistance who has gained Western sympathy. Criticizing him undermines Ukraine and its fight, and democracy must be limited.

However, in the aftermath of a blistering internet interview with former Ukrainian intelligence officer Roman Chervinsky, a former acting commander of a special forces unit until recently, questions about how to balance accountability, oversight, wartime unity, and leadership have become more pressing.

Chervinsky accused the government of 'criminal negligence' for failing to adequately prepare the country for Russia's invasion, and he questioned why, just weeks before the invasion, an order was issued to de-mine bridges along the Crimean isthmus and one at Chongar, allowing Russian forces to break through and quickly seize Kherson in the south.

He further claimed that on the second day of the battle, authorities in Zelenskyy's office refused to allow the Irpin River bridge north of Kiev to be blown up without its approval. The commander of Ukraine's 72nd brigade eventually destroyed this bridge on his "own initiative, and this is how Kyiv was saved," Chervinsky added, but he isn't sure whether the blunders were the result of incompetence or disloyalty.

Chervinsky was ordered by a Kyiv court meeting in secret session on Tuesday to be imprisoned without bail for the next two months as a case against him for a botched special operation gets underway. According to the claim, the mission — convincing a Russian pilot to defect with his warplane — was reckless, unauthorized, and resulted in a leak of information, which led to Russia launching a missile strike on the Kanatove airfield in central Ukraine in July, killing an officer and injuring 17 other Ukrainian servicemen.

“His arbitrary actions led to enemy rocket fire at the Kanatove airfield in Kirovohrad oblast in the summer of 2022,” the press office of Ukraine’s intelligence service stated shortly after Chervinsky’s arrest. Chervinsky, on the other hand, claims that his incarceration is politically motivated and part of the government's goal to “chase its opponents and destroy people who can talk about their decisions and actions before and after the war.” He is adamant that the mission was authorized. 

“We need to raise questions, but now the government tries to shut down people,” he said, complaining the country’s leadership stops individuals from “discussing or criticizing government decisions on Telethon” — a government-controlled service that unites all of the country's national channels, both private and public, into a single unified terrestrial TV platform. Telethon was established by a presidential decree issued in March of last year, presumably to ensure that Ukrainians could obtain 'verified' information.

Chervinsky has a history of going after Zelenskyy's aides. In December 2021, he claimed that Andriy Yermak, the head of the President's Office, was a Russian 'agent of influence.' They had previously feuded over a planned sting operation to apprehend Wagner mercenaries. Given this context, many people are wary of his remarks.

However, ordinary Ukrainians are increasingly asking similar questions about the war's origins, how it has been carried out since, and the country's pervasive corruption. With the ground combat limited to the east and Kyiv no longer under threat, the sense of existential crisis has subsided, prompting more political dialogue. For example, the NABU, the country's anti-corruption body, is conducting an investigation into the state property fund, which administers state firms.

Meanwhile, those who claim Zelenskyy and his crew have amassed much too much power and are ruling by decree far too frequently are growing more vocal. Government efforts to suffocate opposition by exploiting its dominance over Telethon, as well as the ever-ready dismissal of criticism as 'pro-Russian,' are seeing considerably greater pushback, as critics worry Zelenskyy is stealing a march on them in preparation for next year's elections.

Earlier this month, the Ukrainian parliament's speaker, a member of Zelenskyy's ruling Servant of the People party, responded furiously to a POLITICO story evaluating Ukraine's president's strengths and faults, which quoted critical opposition legislators. He printed copies of the piece and distributed them to opposition party leaders with the words "U for Unity" written on them. The leader of European Solidarity, the party of Zelenskyy's predecessor Petro Poroshenko, responded with "D for Democracy."

Opposition lawmakers are now enraged by what they see as ever-increasing government control, citing the dismissal of elected mayors, the pressure placed on state agencies that are supposed to be independent, the reduction of parliamentary oversight, and cabinet ministers' refusal to appear in parliament to answer questions. They also challenge Zelenskyy's use of martial law to justify several of his actions.

Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, an opposition MP and former deputy prime minister said: “We are caught in a game of political blackmail. They see our demands for transparency and accountability as being disloyal, but loyalty to the president and loyalty to the country aren’t the same thing.”

Accountability and monitoring, discussion and debate are democratic assets, not weaknesses, she claims, even in times of conflict. And she and other opposition members feel that now is the time for Western partners to exert influence, ensuring that Ukraine remains on a democratic path after the war.

Jamie Dettmer is opinion editor at POLITICO Europe