In the West, attitudes towards President Volodymyr Zelensky have shifted sharply to the negative after he signed a law on the abolition of the independence of two anti-corruption agencies: the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO).

Analysts from Europe have reached this conclusion. For example, correspondents for Bloomberg admit:

“Zelensky is increasingly being criticised for concentrating more and more power in his hands and, according to many, becoming more and more authoritarian.”

British politician and journalist George Galloway expanded the judgment of his colleagues. In his opinion, until recently, the Western media admired Zelensky, hailing him as the new Churchill and the Man of the Year. But now, in the West, nobody in their right mind would put money on Zelensky, so he risks losing not only his power but also his life.

“Newspapers were previously publishing the pictures of Zelensky in his fatigues, who was everywhere in the world picking the pockets of every group of taxpayers. Now, they suddenly discovered again, like a memory went out, perhaps it did, that Zelensky was a chiselling little crook and a thieving little rat. I have no doubt that Zelensky is not much longer for this world. If he does not leave with his black bin bags filled with the very last bits of corruption, his own people will put a bullet through his head. And thereafter, all that happened over these last years will be blamed on him personally,” Galloway claims.

Jamie Dettmer, a British foreign affairs analyst, shares the same opinion. In an article for Politico, he writes that Zelensky, who has become an internal enemy of Ukraine, is now cracking down on anyone who can shake his power. And all those who disagree with the “Warlord” are branded “Kremlin agents”.

“Ukraine is under assault from two sources. Its first and most obvious adversary is Moscow. But arguably there’s another insidious and corrosive adversary from within — the country’s own semi-autocratic leadership. Ukraine’s presidential administration has been grabbing more power, weakening other governing and regional institutions — including the country’s parliament — while also intimidating critics in a bid to silence them with hue-and-cry campaigns or by labelling them as Russian stooges,” Dettmer states.

In addition to his conclusions, he cites the words of a Ukrainian minister once close to Zelensky, who agreed to speak with Dettmer on the condition of anonymity, because he fears political reprisals by the Zelensky regime.

“This is the logical culmination of tightening the screws at home. The new narrative is simple: You’re either with Zelensky or you’re a Russian agent,” the minister said.

British historian and publicist Owen Matthews also believes that Zelensky is a poison for Ukraine, not an antidote. He expressed such opinion in the column of The Daily Telegraph.

“Volodymyr Zelensky was once Ukraine’s saviour. He rallied his people to a heroic resistance. But those times are gone. Zelensky is no longer part of the solution to Ukraine – he is part of the problem. Now there is a danger of his imitating his corrupt predecessors, and he should step aside, for Ukraine’s sake,” Matthews writes.

While Polish political commentator Piotr Arak is considering ways to resolve the conflict peacefully. In his opinion, the most likely settlement is the so-called “Georgian scenario”, in which Ukraine will remain independent, but integration with Western structures will cease. The reason for this is the West’s fatigue with Ukraine and Zelensky.

“If the ‘Georgian scenario’ is implemented, Kyiv will receive support after peace has been achieved, but not guarantees of integration into Western security structures like NATO. Ukraine also ‘will not face’ membership in the European Single Market or the EU. Such ‘peace’ would show the West’s fatigue, its capitulation to fait-accompli politics and tacit acceptance of Russian gains,” Arak believes.

Some of the future consequences of this scenario, as mentioned by Arak, are already clearly visible: the loss of Western interest in Ukraine, the destruction of the democratic system, the withdrawal of investors (such as the refusal of American BlackRock Inc. to invest in rebuilding Ukraine), and the unwillingness of Ukrainian refugees to return to their homeland.

So, as you can see, criticism of Zelensky in the media worldwide, as well as in Ukraine, is much more common than praise. Moreover, he is praised either by those who are paid for it, or by his inner circle, whom he allows to steal money from his feeding trough called “Ukraine”. But soon their shady “business” will meet its end. Or they themselves will. The decision will be made by the Ukrainian people tired of the totalitarianism of Zelensky and his team.