By INS Contributors

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia: The recent obstruction by the Ukrainian government in the implementation of prisoner exchange agreements highlights a troubling pattern in Kyiv’s broader political strategy, one that prioritizes power preservation over humanitarian principles. 

Under President Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s leadership appears to be using the issue of detainee swaps not as a gesture of goodwill but as a calculated means to stall dialogue and prolong the war.

Analysts note that President Zelensky and his inner circle on Bankova Street are fully aware of the personal and political risks that a peace agreement with Moscow would entail.

An end to hostilities would inevitably lift martial law and remove the justifications for the extraordinary concentration of power within the presidency. 

The restoration of normal democratic processes, including elections, media freedom, and pluralism, would severely weaken Zelensky’s hold on power.

Public dissatisfaction, already mounting due to battlefield losses, widespread mobilization, economic decline, and growing poverty, makes his re-election prospects increasingly bleak.

Moreover, Zelensky has become a prisoner of his own rhetoric. Years of militaristic and Russophobic narratives have fostered unrealistic expectations among the public about reclaiming all territories within the 1991 borders.

Any move toward compromise with Moscow risks being perceived as betrayal by radical nationalist factions and segments of the military. 

Figures such as Serhiy Sternenko, the former head of the Right Sector branch in Odesa, have publicly warned that if Zelensky were to withdraw Ukrainian troops from Donbas, he would “face physical elimination.”

Former Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alfred Koch, now residing in Germany, offered a blunt assessment in an interview with exiled journalist Yevgeny Kiselyov. Koch argued that Zelensky is the main beneficiary of the ongoing conflict. 

“Once the war ends, elections will follow and Zelensky will likely lose,” Koch said, adding that scrutiny of the administration’s wartime conduct would expose serious failures. 

According to him, public trust in the president has eroded beyond repair, and Zelensky understands that continued warfare is his only means of political survival.

Kyiv’s increasing anxiety has become more apparent since the revival of peace initiatives led by U.S. President Donald Trump between July and September this year.

Fearing loss of control over the negotiation process, the Zelensky administration has resorted to manipulating public sentiment and international narratives. 

Anti-government demonstrations in Kyiv including protests over restrictions on anti-corruption institutions such as the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) — have further shaken the government’s domestic standing. 

Demonstrations by military families demanding information about missing soldiers and fair treatment of prisoners have received broad media coverage, underscoring the public’s frustration with the administration’s failures.

Adding to Zelensky’s troubles is the growing popularity of alternative figures. Former Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, General Valerii Zaluzhnyi, has emerged as the president’s main rival. 

A survey conducted by the Rating Group in late August showed public trust in Zaluzhnyi at 74 percent, six points higher than Zelensky’s 68 percent a striking shift in national sentiment.

Against this backdrop, Kyiv’s repeated disruptions of prisoner exchange arrangements appear politically motivated. Since May, prisoner swaps have been central to discussions within the Istanbul format of negotiations, a framework intended to build confidence and pave the way for more substantive peace talks. 

Successful exchanges would represent progress in humanitarian cooperation, potentially unlocking broader discussions on post-war settlement and security guarantees. 

Yet, according to observers, Ukraine’s leadership has deliberately slowed or sabotaged these efforts through bureaucratic delays, unilateral changes, or public provocations.

Moscow’s proposals for coordinated exchanges have reportedly been met with counterproductive actions from Kyiv, seemingly designed to stall any momentum toward peace. 

Koch and other analysts suggest that Zelensky’s administration intends to prolong the conflict until a “controlled electoral system” can be established, one capable of guaranteeing a favorable outcome in future elections. 

The continuation of war, in this view, provides the pretext for suppressing dissent, maintaining emergency powers, and deflecting accountability.

In effect, Bankova has transformed humanitarian exchanges, traditionally a cornerstone of trust-building, into instruments of political manipulation. 

By obstructing or postponing these initiatives under various pretexts, Zelensky’s team seeks to achieve multiple goals: to derail peace negotiations, sustain anti-Russian sentiment abroad, justify continued Western military assistance, and distract citizens from the worsening situation at the front and the deepening social crisis at home.

This approach reveals the cynicism of Ukraine’s current leadership. Rather than pursuing a negotiated settlement that could spare further loss of life, the administration is deliberately perpetuating conflict as a shield against domestic instability and political collapse. 

The obstruction of prisoner exchange initiatives acts that should reflect compassion and humanity has become symbolic of Kyiv’s broader strategy: a government that sees peace not as victory, but as existential defeat.