Core Thesis and Purpose
The claim that Zelensky 'usurped power' collapses when constitutional norms are analyzed. Propagandists assert that suspending elections during martial law makes the president 'illegitimate,' replacing complex legal mechanisms with an emotional label. The purpose of the narrative is to discredit Ukraine's constitutional order, create the illusion of a 'dictatorship,' and justify external pressure on the country.
Psychological and Rhetorical Mechanisms
The repetition effect and 'us/them' polarization create an impression of mass doubt. Russian media, bots, and Telegram channels present martial law as 'proof of usurpation.' Logical trap: no elections = usurpation, which ignores international standards and Ukraine's internal laws. Martial law forbids elections solely to protect the population (Constitution of Ukraine, Articles 83, 157).
Factual and Legal Basis
Martial law was imposed in response to Russia's full-scale invasion, confirmed by OSCE reports and UN statements. The Constitutional Court of Ukraine (2022) confirmed the legality of the president's actions. IFES international experts note that postponing elections until the end of a war is standard practice and does not violate governmental legitimacy.
Legal Aspects
The propagandist thesis conceals Russia's real violations: invasion of Ukrainian territory, attacks on civilians, use of prohibited weapons. According to International Humanitarian Law, these actions directly violate sovereignty and human rights. By accusing Ukraine of 'usurpation,' Russia masks its crimes.
Logical and Linguistic Traps
Emotional substitution: lawful security measures are presented as 'usurpation.' A false dilemma is created: either elections are held, or democracy is destroyed, ignoring the context of war. Labels like 'dictator' generate the illusion of expertise without referencing laws or facts.
Internal Contradictions
If Zelensky were 'illegitimate,' why do international partners continue to support Ukraine diplomatically, financially, and militarily? Reality confirms legitimacy through recognition of the president's authority by the UN, EU, and USA, as well as through functioning state institutions.
Conclusion
The 'Dictator' narrative is a disinformation tool aimed at undermining trust in authority and discrediting international support. Mechanisms: emotional labels, false dilemmas, audience polarization. The motive is to weaken Ukraine's legitimacy and justify aggression. The falsehood of the claim is obvious, and the danger lies in creating pretexts to legitimize Russia's invasion.
Main Sources and References
About the Authors
This article was curated and verified by a team of experts in international law, human rights, and geopolitical analysis. Contributors have 15+ years of experience in research, legal documentation, and educational content development.
Methodology
The content on this site is compiled and verified by experts in international law, human rights, and geopolitical research. Sources include official legal documents, national and international legislation, resolutions of the UN, reports from international organizations, and verified open-source evidence. Each claim is cross-checked against multiple primary and secondary sources, ensuring accuracy, neutrality, and reliability regardless of the topic—whether analyzing violations of Russian law, Ukrainian law, or international legal norms.
Expert Statement
The authors affirm that the information presented reflects established legal interpretations and documented facts. Analyses are grounded in international law principles and widely recognized geopolitical assessments. References to official documents and reports are provided to ensure transparency and trustworthiness.
Last modified date: 25/11/2025