Elections in Ukraine during the war: what is really possible, under what conditions, and why is there talk of a referendum in Kyiv again

Ukraine enters 2026 with a paradox well understood in Israel: the country is at war, living under martial law, but at the same time is forced to address questions about democratic legitimacy and future elections. In public discourse, the formula “elections after a ceasefire” is increasingly heard — and simultaneously, the idea of a referendum, which could theoretically be held on the same day as the presidential vote, emerges.

Experts who are part of a special working group and directly form the legislative rules for the first elections discussed this in a commentary for TSN (Ukr.).

For the Israeli reader, this is not an abstract legal puzzle. A significant Ukrainian community lives in Israel, and Ukrainian citizens with voting rights are present here. The question of “how to vote abroad” becomes one of the most challenging organizational knots of the future campaign — alongside security, registries, and polling station infrastructure.

Why the topic of elections has surfaced now

At the end of December 2025, a special working group was created in the Verkhovna Rada. Its task is to prepare legislative changes for the “special period” and essentially write the rules for the first post-war elections so that the country does not fall into legal chaos.

The signal seems to be addressed in two directions at once. Inside Ukraine, it is an attempt to preemptively address questions about legitimacy and how exactly the transition to normal political life will be arranged. For partners, it is a demonstration that Kyiv does not abandon democratic procedures but does not intend to simulate elections at the cost of safety and trust in the result.

Against this backdrop, a thesis that the group considers fundamental is constantly repeated: elections do not start “at will” while martial law is in effect and while there are no conditions for at least relative stability.

Can presidential elections be held under martial law

The answer most often given by lawyers and organizers is strict: no.

Firstly, it is a direct prohibition enshrined in the legislation on the legal regime of martial law. Secondly, even if one imagines a formal loophole, the practical reality remains: the security of polling stations, the delivery of ballots, the protection of voter lists, the possibility of free campaigning and media work, as well as access to voting for millions of people who are either on the front lines, in evacuation, or outside the country.

Experts from the working group emphasize: the discussion revolves around a post-war scenario. And the question of “when exactly” is tied not to the calendar but to two conditions — a ceasefire and the cessation or cancellation of martial law.

Why the idea of “elections + referendum on the same day” is being voiced

Politically, the idea seems tempting: to combine two major votes, achieve high turnout, and simultaneously give society the feeling that it is directly participating in a fateful decision — especially if it concerns the parameters of a future peace.

But such a scenario has several constraints.

The first is the current law on the all-Ukrainian referendum, which prohibits holding a referendum simultaneously with national elections. Yes, the parliament can theoretically change this rule, but it is not a technical amendment; it is a political decision with consequences.

The second is the question of who can initiate such a referendum. According to experts, a nationwide referendum is not a “button” that the president or the Rada can press at will. The remaining option is a popular initiative with extensive requirements for signatures and their geographical collection. In wartime conditions, this seems like an extremely difficult, almost unrealistic path.

The third is martial law. While it is in effect, referendums are also prohibited.

“Elections should not be part of a peace agreement”: the argument about sovereignty

One of the key lines of discussion is not only “when” but also “on what grounds.”

Experts draw attention to a fundamental point: if elections become a condition or point of a peace agreement, Ukraine risks appearing as a state with “reduced sovereignty.” This is not a debate about democracy as a value, but about who sets the rules and in what logic internal decisions are made.

In the Ukrainian interpretation, elections are a sovereign procedure, and they should be initiated from within the legal system, not as an external condition added to a document between the warring parties.

“60 days of discussion”: how they try to involve society in the process

In public statements by Ukrainian politicians, a scheme was voiced: if a coordinated draft of a major agreement appears, it is put up for broad discussion for about 60 days. Only after this are further steps possible — including the idea of a referendum or other forms of public legitimization.

The logic of this approach shows an attempt to close two risks simultaneously.

The first is the risk of “it was imposed on us.” The second is the risk of internal explosion when part of society says it was not consulted.

But this scheme has a weak point: it requires a long and stable ceasefire and a relatively calm situation inside the country. Without this, any “discussion period” turns into a battle of emotional campaigns and mutual accusations.

Online voting: why the idea is voiced but meets resistance

From the perspective of organizing elections, a hybrid model (polling stations plus digital tools) seems attractive, especially due to the problem of relocation and millions of people abroad. It could help with registration, changing voting addresses, queue management, and flow distribution.

But in the expert camp, there is a firm position: online voting in the first post-war elections is extremely risky.

The reasons are clear even to a reader far from jurisprudence: cyber threats, interference, distrust in the result, the complexity of guaranteeing the secrecy and freedom of voting at home. Many European practices (with rare cases like Estonia) were built over years, through pilots and gradual expansion. Ukraine is in a situation where any controversial technology could become a point of division.

The most Israeli question: how Ukrainians abroad will vote

For Israel, this topic is practical.

The Ukrainian side acknowledges that the state does not have an accurate picture of how many voters are abroad and where exactly. Without this, it is impossible to properly plan polling stations, personnel, security, logistics, and even basic ballot printing numbers.

Among the discussed solutions are expanding the network of polling stations through agreements with host countries, increasing the duration of voting on election day, or even multi-day voting. All this requires agreements and resources.

In Israeli realities, this means: if Kyiv follows the scenario of expanding foreign polling stations, Israeli cities with concentrations of Ukrainian citizens may face queues, infrastructure limitations, and increased security requirements around voting. A transparent mechanism will be needed: where the polling stations are, how to register, what documents are required, how to manage the flow.

The cost of elections: why the numbers are not secondary

Discussions include estimates that the elections could become the most expensive in the country’s history. We are talking about billions of hryvnias, and it’s not just about commission salaries and ballot printing.

It’s about security, transportation, communication, protection, preparation of premises, possible expansion of the foreign network, and creating special solutions for military voting. In conditions where Ukraine’s budget is overloaded with defense, elections automatically become a question: who and how will finance this, and will it become an additional point of tension in relations with partners.

The risk of division: who “has the right” to vote

One of the most dangerous scenarios is the public “sorting” of people by the degree of suffering: those who left, those who stayed, those who fight, those who lost their homes, and so on. In the expert community, there is a warning: such logic destroys the unity of the country and makes elections a tool of mutual punishment.

For Israel, this sounds familiar: long conflicts often give rise to internal fault lines where political affiliation begins to be measured by “where you were at the moment of pain.” Ukraine is trying to preemptively establish rules that minimize this division and do not turn elections into a referendum on the “rightness of life” of different population groups.

The Constitutional Court as a bottleneck of legitimacy

The discussion also raises an institutional risk: the Constitutional Court of Ukraine is not fully staffed. For complex legal decisions related to referendums and transitional regimes, this can be critical — not only legally but also politically. Any weakness in constitutional control will be used against the result: inside the country, in international disputes, and, of course, in the Russian information war.

What the CEC proposes: “a month for appointment” and “six months for preparation”

The Central Election Commission proposes a scheme that looks pragmatic.

The logic is this: after the cessation or cancellation of martial law, elections can be appointed fairly quickly — within a month. But the electoral process itself, that is, the real preparation of the campaign, should not start immediately, but no earlier than six months later. This time is needed to restore registries, prepare polling stations, write rules for foreign voting, and resolve the issue of military participation.

Separately, the territorial framework is discussed: voting is not expected in occupied territories, as well as in Russia and Belarus. For Ukrainian citizens who are there, a scenario of voting in neighboring safe countries is considered.

A brief analysis from the editorial team

Ukraine is preparing elections as a complex state operation, not as an ordinary campaign. This is an honest approach: better to spend months on rules and infrastructure than to get a quick result that no one believes in.

For Israel, there are two conclusions here.

First: if Kyiv follows the path of expanding foreign polling stations or multi-day voting, Israel will inevitably become part of this system. And the question will no longer be only Ukrainian — it will become organizational and diplomatic.

Second: the idea of “elections plus referendum” looks impressive for the political scene, but it carries the maximum risks — legal, technological, and social. Judging by the position of the experts of the working group, Kyiv is now consciously keeping the focus on post-war elections and trying not to turn the procedure into an element of external bargaining.

News from Israel News Nikk.Agency.