Zelensky Needs A New Act - Trump Was Right

How many Ukrainian soldiers have died in the last three years of war? You probably haven’t heard because, newsworthy as the figure should be, western media outlets rarely report it. The latest authoritative calculation suggests that both sides have lost roughly the same number of men: that is, approximately 200,000 to 220,000 dead. Staggeringly, this is more soldiers than the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa combined lost in the First World War.

The sad truth is those men have died for nothing. Trump’s newly announced peace deal is far worse than what was on the table in Istanbul in April 2022. One can quibble about the details but it is hard to see how dramatically more favourable terms can be achieved. On the battlefield Russia clearly has the upper hand and in the slow grind of day to day fighting is gaining ground incrementally. The Ukrainian lines are thinly manned and new recruits are almost impossible to find. Men press ganged in the street are unlikely to prove reliable under fire and desertion is rampant. A complete collapse of the front is within the bounds of possibility. 

European leaders might condemn the plan as ‘capitulation’ but they have no alternative. The loud discussion among E.U. leaders in recent weeks about how to finance future fighting has been a pointless irrelevancy in the face of Ukraine’s lack of manpower. Pro-war narratives have come to be treated so uncritically in the West that few have asked the crucial questions as to where the soldiers will come from to fight two or three years more war should Russian assets in Euroclear – much of it the life-savings of ordinary middle class people – be seized. 

Given Ukrainians are doing the fighting and dying, we might well ask if fighting on interminably is what they want? Since the summer, polls have been showing an overwhelming majority favouring a negotiated peace as soon as possible. Zelensky’s former press secretary has declared: “my country is bleeding out. Many who reflexively oppose every peace proposal believe they are defending Ukraine. With all respect, that is the clearest proof they have no idea what is actually happening on the front lines and inside the country right now.” 

How have we come to such a pass? The hawks leading the European Commission must take much of the blame. Prominent among them are politicians from the Baltics states, such as former Estonian prime minister Kaja Kallas the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and former Lithunanian prime minister, Andrius Kubilius, the Commissioner for Defence. Militantly anti-Russian rhetoric originating in these former republics of the U.S.S.R. has long negatively dominated the bloc’s relations with Russia. 

It was such intransigence which meant that diplomatic engagement with Russia was repeatedly rejected following the seizure of Crimea. Since Russia invaded, waging war has been valorised and Kyiv has been encouraged to unrealistically pursue maximalist demands. 

However, while the E.U. leadership has persistently maintained a belligerent drumbeat, it does so in concert with the current Ukrainian leadership. Increasingly, Zelensky appears to have become an insuperable obstacle to peace. After the failed counter-offensive in 2023, he was told by Zaluzhnyi, his top General, that the war was a ‘stalemate’. Zelensky’s response was to move him to a diplomatic post and replace him with Syrsky, a former Russian army officer who has been heavily criticised for his disregard for his soldiers’ lives. 

Zelensky has garnered much sympathy from western publics and, in many respects, his demeanour has been impressive. The hostile reception he received at the Oval Office in February was seen by many to be unfair treatment and garnered him much support. Yet aggressive as Trump and Vance were, the point they sought to make was arguably long overdue and still hasn’t registered with many. When the President mocked ‘Oh, you’re all dressed up’, he wasn’t primarily offering styling advice. He was suggesting that Zelensky’s familiar routine, summed up in his never being seen in anything but pseudo-military attire, was decidedly dated and now highly inappropriate.

Over the three years of the war we have all become familiar with the format of a visit by Zelensky to a major foreign capital. Appearing in combats, he will hector his hosts in front of the media and insist that be given various items of military hardware. After a suitable interval his request will invariably be acceded to. This routine, as with the general conduct of the war, was largely treated unquestioningly. Zelensky has been allowed to make demand after demand without producing any sort of realistic end scenario for the conflict. Meanwhile, the soldiers he sends to the front are dying in their thousands every month while the western media chatters about the Russian ‘meat grinder’ as if a Ukrainian one did not also exist.  

The comedian who played a president, who then became president for real, and who now habitually struts in martial get up despite never having seen military service himself has long been in need of sending up. Vance’s vitriol towards Zelensky during the interaction was of a shocking strength. It seemed almost personal and might be suspected to be that of a former soldier who served on the frontline in a needless war towards an actor who has sat in relatively safety for three years while sending a continuous flow of men to their deaths. 

The intervention of Trump and Vance back in February was a clear suggestion that he needed a new act. But in the months since Zelensky has continued on the same path, albeit having made a few strategic wardrobe alterations. He now arrives at summits in ‘a military-inspired jacket’ and journalists chatter admiringly how it reflects ‘some of the semiology of the battlefield’. However, Trump was not primarily offering sartorial advice in the Oval Office in February, as aforesaid. The fundamental issue is not the precise cut of his clothes but Zelensky’s willingness to make peace and bring three years of bloody war to an end. 

Zelensky might be simply unwilling to do so. Certainly, a change of tack would be a gutting admission of the futility of the course that he has unflinchingly pursued despite warnings even from his own generals. Increasingly it also appears that Zelensky must cling to power in order to protect himself. Having first tried to shut down corruption investigations centred on his political associates and, now, having cut key players loose, he appears to be in defensive mode. 

Zelensky’s presidential term ended nearly eighteen months ago and, having said he will not seek reelection, when the war and martial law ends, with peace he will be out of power. In the circumstances of Ukraine, this would be a moment of great personal jeopardy. It is hard not to come to the conclusion that Zelensky appears to have a personal interest in the war continuing. 

Zelensky has repeatedly said that he wears military garb in solidarity with the troops. Yet if he truly has their interests at heart why is he daily throwing their lives away in an unwinnable war? Those who have studied the process of bringing wars to an end (from Fred Iklé’s 1971 Every War must End to 2015 Sarah Croco’s Peace at What Price?: Leader Culpability and the Domestic Politics of War Termination) warn repeatedly that hard-liners who prolong a war unnecessarily often severely damage the nation they are purporting to defend. 

Zelensky has shown a remarkable ability for self-reinvention. For the sake of his country he urgently needs to exercise it again, end the military cosplay and agree a peace. If he is unwilling to retire his commander act, the consequences for Ukraine look increasingly bloody and grim.

Image: Wikimedia Commons/The White House

Licence: public domain

No image changes made.