The Post-Zelensky Era: What Options?

History began to take shape after the carefully staged Anchorage episode.

Diplomatic circles have been buzzing since President Zelensky, the British Prime Minister, and a hand-picked European delegation were summoned. President Trump floated the idea of a multilateral security force that Europeans would have to shoulder entirely—“the burden.” This excitement contrasts with the media-political fickleness toward Washington until now. For the moment, nothing concrete has emerged, yet European chancelleries are busy trying to give the impression that they are steering the process.

Early leaks already suggest that any peace deal would mean territorial losses for Ukraine. The European Union demands a “just peace,” but has little real say. History also shows that leaders who win wars or negotiate peace don’t always stay in power: Gorbachev (Afghanistan, end of the Cold War), George H.W. Bush (Gulf War), Truman, Churchill, De Gaulle, Golda Meir, Rabin—or more recently Biden after Afghanistan. In Ukraine itself, Poroshenko, who managed the Crimea crisis and the Donbass war, was defeated in 2019 by Zelensky.

If there were to be a peace deal—or new elections—Zelensky would face a dilemma. He promised peace before his election. Could he run again after three years of war, with a record that includes territorial losses, tens of thousands of dead and wounded, a devastated country, crushing debt for generations, concessions on natural resources, and no membership in either the EU or NATO? Voters will have to decide, along with Western allies, who remain highly influential in this process.

That is why it’s worth following the saga of the 3rd Assault Brigade (formerly Azov—so often vilified, especially by Russia to justify “denazification”) and its charismatic leader, Andriy Biletsky, whose fate is inseparable from that of the Brigade.

The Saga of the 3rd Assault Brigade (ex-Azov)

Origins

Formed in 2022–2023 through the merger of units stemming from the Azov Battalion, the 3rd Brigade aimed to become a modern, mobile force. On February 24, 2023, Zelensky officially presented it with its colors.

An intense military path

The Brigade fought on several major fronts—Kherson, Bakhmut, Donbass, Kharkiv, Avdiivka, and Lyman/Kupiansk—holding up to 60 km of front line for nearly a year, a record. It also innovated: Russian soldiers reportedly surrendered via ground drones guided by its units.

Openness and innovative recruitment

In March 2025, the Brigade created two international battalions, including Canadian volunteers. Nearly 900 recruits now join each month, thanks to modern communications and rigorous selection.

Political-strategic evolution

The Brigade shapes public opinion, attracts young people, and even appeals to some Western companies. Its founder, Andriy Biletsky, now commands the 3rd Army Corps and has emerged as a central military leader.

The 3rd Brigade is no longer merely Azov’s successor—it has reinvented itself as a military model, symbol of a new Ukraine. Its founder, Biletsky, is increasingly seen as an influential and innovative leader backed by seasoned troops. The local press describes him as both a “rigorous organizer” and an “innovative strategist.”

The Rise of Andriy Biletsky

From ideologue to warlord

Before 2014, Biletsky was a far-right figure (Patriots of Ukraine, Social-National Assembly). In 2014, he created the Azov Battalion, known in Mariupol but quickly labeled “ultra-nationalist.”

The transformation

A member of parliament from 2014 to 2019, he failed politically and returned to combat. In 2022, he restructured Azov, scrubbing its ideological stigma and creating the 3rd Assault Brigade.

Organizational leadership

He enforced discipline, strict selection, and intensive training. According to The Times, his Brigade has drawn 20,000 volunteers. Charismatic, he blends military tradition, innovations (drones, electronic warfare), and digital communications.

Turning point

In March 2025, the 3rd Brigade became the nucleus of the 3rd Army Corps, commanded by Biletsky. Rarely does a former militia leader integrate so deeply into the official chain of command. Intelligence Online describes him as part of a “new hybrid military elite” with political weight.

Controversy

His ideological past still shadows him. Washington continues to ban the original Azov from U.S. military aid, but not the 3rd Brigade. Supporters argue he has reinvented himself as a patriot.

The Narrative Shift on Azov

• Image: From ultra-nationalist battalion (2014) to integrated regiment, then after 2022 the “heroes of Mariupol,” synonymous with sacrifice.
• Communication: Dropping runic symbols, adopting Ukrainian flags, highlighting women and minorities.
• Biography: Radical writings minimized as “youthful errors.”
• Internationalization: Open to foreign volunteers (Canadians, Croats, Georgians, Balts).

The narrative now is: Azov defends Ukraine, not a race.

Jews in Azov

A point often raised in Western accounts: some Ukrainian Jews fought in Azov:

• Dmytro Kozatskyi (“Orest”), Azovstal photographer.
• Testimonies from Lev Golinkin (Forward), Kyiv Independent, and Mykola Kravchenko confirm Jews, Tatars, and Armenians served.

Former Azov spokesman Kravchenko stated in 2018: even if some names were withheld (likely for family safety), there is ample testimony—yes, Jewish soldiers were in Azov. The unit itself argued: “We are not anti-Semitic. Proof: our ranks are open.” (The Times, NYT)

Scenarios for Succeeding Zelensky

Andriy Biletsky

• Strengths: war-time charisma, 20,000 volunteers, image of a military reformer.
• Weaknesses: ideological past, Western mistrust, risk of diplomatic isolation.

Valerii Zaluzhny

• “Hero of Kyiv and Kharkiv,” popular as the “Iron General.”
• Sidelined in 2024, politically less visible.

Oleksandr Syrsky

• Experienced, loyal to Zelensky, victorious in Kyiv and Bakhmut.
• Considered bureaucratic, lacking charisma, criticized by soldiers.

Kyrylo Budanov

• Young (39), head of military intelligence, media-savvy and enigmatic.
• No large-scale command experience, more “James Bond” than statesman.

Comparative outlook

• Biletsky: charisma and mass support, but problematic in the West.
• Zaluzhny: deeply respected, but sidelined.
• Syrsky: loyal, but unpopular.
• Budanov: promising, but still more secret agent than political leader.

In succession, Biletsky could mobilize veterans and radical patriots, while Budanov and Zaluzhny would likely be more acceptable to Western allies.

Conclusion

After Ukraine’s 34th independence anniversary, the country’s future remains highly uncertain. Russia shows no sign of negotiating except on its own terms, hinted at during the Alaska meeting. Meanwhile, the EU has just transferred €4 billion in aid to Kyiv.

Every nation needs heroes. Collective memory tends to smooth out bitter defeats. The post-Zelensky era will pit military and political figures against one another, each bearing both promises and sacrifices. Ukraine’s future will depend as much on its voters as on the dictates of its allies—especially those watching from America.

Such is the way of the world.