Three American-Backed Dictators Without Elections
There are three American-supported leaders who have maintained power without proper elections: Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, Muhammad Yunus of Bangladesh, and Ahmed al-Shara of Syria. Their positions exist largely because of U.S. backing—Zelensky as a tool against Russia, Yunus to remove Sheikh Hasina in Bangladesh, and Ahmed al-Shara in Syria for strategic interests.
Five years ago, Zelensky was duly elected, but fresh elections are overdue. As the war nears its end, he refuses to hold new elections. On the other hand he picks up an argument with the very President who is trying to end the war for him. Not very smart and statesman like behaviour. Meanwhile, Muhammad Yunus, with American support, overthrew a democratically elected government in Bangladesh using radical Islamic street groups. In Syria, a former rebel leader with ties to Al-Qaeda ousted Bashar al-Assad—who himself inherited power rather than winning a democratic mandate.
Among these cases, forcing Yunus to hold elections in Bangladesh should be the easiest. He has no background in governance, politics, or nation building. The American deep state, seeking to remove Hasina for its own reasons, backed Yunus, a close ally of former U.S. President Bill Clinton. To gain political muscle, he relied on violent Islamist student groups, who now wield significant influence over the government.
For any meaningful peace talks in Ukraine, Zelensky must step aside—either through democratic means or resignation, handing over power to a successor. Elections would be the most legitimate path forward.
As for Ahmed al-Shara in Syria, he is new to democratic governance. To grant him legitimacy and establish due process, elections must be held—an unprecedented move in an Islamized country prone to autocratic rule. The UN or other nations could help facilitate this, as Syria left to its own devices will likely continue its cycle of autocracy and instability.
The only force capable of compelling these leaders toward legitimacy is the United States—and, more specifically, President Trump. His influence carries weight, and under his leadership, global economies are being reformed, wars in Europe and the Middle East have ended, and China has been forced to temper its aggression in the Indo-Pacific.
; but this all seems like (another) pivotal point, where ukraine can go scorched earth and escalate the things beyond control, as they're practically in 'nothing to loose' mode, and russia would equally retaliate and everything quickly just spirals out of control...
) or someone(EU)?
