Yeah didn't this come up as a clickbait non-issue last year?

Yes. This is a inflammatory headline purely to try and push an agenda.

There was literally a poll a couple of months ago that showed something like 80% of Ukrainians were in favour of not having elections.

Not to even mention that Ukraine is under Marshall Law, and per their laws disallows elections. And don't even get me started on the entire premise of running elections in a country where a quarter of the landmass is under enemy occupation and the logistics of getting votes from 100s of thousands of deployed troops and the serious security concerns of the election itself from Russian attacks.

In my opinion Newsweek have just outed themselves here and the question is for who?

Most of my Ukranian friends would not vote for him in an election, it’s a bit of an ‘open secret’ in the country that he’s seen as a wartime leader who would be expected to step aside in peacetime.

Usually they have a "fairness meter" on their articles, but it seems to be missing from this one.

Not to mention that Russia would absolutely bomb voting centers.

Day 1 after they kick russia out permanently? Election.

You'd actually want to schedule it a bit further out than this. Once the war is over, political parties will need to time organize, build infrastructure and campaign in an environment where the weather isn't "sunny with a chance of bombs later". Holding elections, with any sort of opposition having not had time to campaign is one of the more insidious anti-democratic tricks. As it leads to people voting for the "devil they know", even if the opposition isn't a devil at all.

Why would you hold an election, particularly if he’s doing a good job of it?

Well, that's up for debate and should be decided by the people. As you said: It's a slippery slope and I'll add the way to hell is paved with good intentions.