Volodymyr Zelensky is perceived as both a hero and a villain, depending on the political alignment of whoever is making the assessment. To many on the right, he is a greedy, puppet politician pushing the world towards a nuclear holocaust.
For many on the left, he is an embattled hero—fighting for the soul of his nation—who needs all the support that he can get. Not surprisingly, Zelensky has been awarded times magazine person of the year for 2022 and many people on the right are pissed.
I lean right of center, but I try to be as objective as possible in analyzing any situation so that I do not fall into groupthink, so while it may have been easier for me to take the right's position on this issue, I, unfortunately, am more sympathetic to the position of the left.
Many on the right have argued that Elon Musk is a more deserving figure for the award for his continued defense of free speech following his purchase of twitter and the changes he’s brought to it. I appreciate Musk’s efforts. I think he’s a great guy, doing great things. However, Zelensky is a more deserving figure and I’ll explain why.
Even after taking into consideration the entitled way Zelensky asks for support and the obligatory manner said support has been provided so far, I think Zelensky is in the right. I fail to see the alternative course of action available to him save surrendering his country to Putin.
At great peril to himself, Zelensky has stayed back in Ukraine and fought hard, resisting the Russians for months in a campaign that was predicted to last only weeks.
We all know how easily a country capitulates to an invading military force once the leader of the country flees. Most recently, Afghanistan’s western-backed government collapsed in days following the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, the president fled almost immediately. Perhaps the people of Afghanistan would have had a fighting chance if their leader had not fled. For this reason, I think Zelensky is a hero to the Ukrainians.
In some quarters, some people refer to the conflict as "Zelensky’s war" and it blows my mind that someone could be that tone-deaf to label the war anything other than Putin’s war. Everyone knows Putin was the aggressor, he invaded Ukraine not the other way around. We can have an argument that Putin invaded as a strategic defense move against NATO’s expansion, and we can blame NATO for flirting with the idea of Ukraine joining NATO as a precursor to the war, but that still does not justify Putin’s invasion.
Ukraine is a sovereign nation, and every sovereign nation should have the right to any sort of military or economic alliance of their choice without interference from their neighbors. The right is uncompromised and unflinching in their support for freedom, personal responsibility, and minimal government interference in the lives of individuals. Are these not the same things Ukraine is fighting for? If Ukraine were a human being, would the right not defend Ukraine’s right to self-defense? Would the right not hold Putin accountable for his criminal action despite the prevailing circumstances much as they hold criminals accountable even when said criminals use poverty as an excuse for criminality? This is a massive double standard.
I liken Ukraine’s struggle to an exercise of their “Second Amendment” rights to bear arms and self-defense against an aggressor. No person on the right would argue that if someone broke into your house trying to kill you that you have no right to defend your home with deadly force, or ask for help to repel the home invader, so why do they argue against this same thing for Ukraine?
Some may say Russia has a right to feel threatened by NATO’s expansion and act accordingly in its best interests, I agree, and if I were Putin, I'd probably be doing the same, but that still doesn't justify Russia's invasion. Some would go further to say that the US would not allow a foreign military power to have military assets at its border in the country of its neighbor. They would cite the Cuban military crisis after the failed bay of Pigs invasion as an example. If the US can act that defensibly, so they say, why not Russia? Many in my own country are supportive of Russia for this same reason and they are wrong.
That the US has set a bad precedent does not mean the precedent should be followed and codified, the US has no right to invade its neighbor if its neighbor forms a threatening military alliance with a hostile power, I condemn that and will condemn that if it ever happens. The people of Ukraine should not have to pay the price for a bad precedent set by America.
Some have made a distasteful comparison of Hitler being given the times person of the year award in the 1930s to that of Zelensky in 2022. This is simply insane. A more fitting comparison would be if Putin had been given the award amid his Ukraine invasion. How can anyone think that this is an appropriate comparison? What crimes has Zelensky committed to being compared with Hitler?
I suspect that many on the right condemn the west’s continued support for Zelensky because a democrat is in power in the white house. This is simply political convenience, these same people condemning Joe Biden for his support, hailed Trump when Trump provided weapons to Ukraine to fight Russia and I’m sure if Trump were in office currently helping Ukraine, the right would be falling over themselves in defense of him and I have no doubt that the left would be doing the exact opposite of what they are doing right now and would have labeled Trump a warmonger. Optics is everything. People are not as objective as they wish to think.
Given the rights position on this issue, I would like to see the alternatives provided. What should Zelensky have done, what should Zelensky do?
Zelensky is accused of being a western puppet, I do not doubt that the west is using Ukraine as a proxy in its war against Russia, but that fact itself is secondary to the fact that Zelensky and the people of Ukraine are fighting for their survival as a nation. The primary fact is that Ukraine is fighting for its existence and if another power saw that as an opportunity to further its geopolitical interests, should Ukraine abandon its own goals of self-preservation just so it can claim not to be a puppet of such a power? In many areas of life, people’s agendas often align sometimes by accident. Should people abandon their agenda just because it aligns with that of someone, they do not agree with?
Relating to the accusations of Zelensky being a western puppet, Zelensky is said to have come to power via a western "coup.” Some argue that the US rigged out a pro-Russian government to install a pro-western one which if true is a bad thing. But how exactly is an invasion by Russia a logical counter or an appropriate response to that?
Putin has claimed the protection of ethnic Russians being persecuted in Ukraine as part of his reasons for invading. Even if that were true, such ethnic Russians are first and foremost Ukrainian citizens, and the issues they were having are domestic issues that should have been handled internally. Is Russia bound to invade any country that persecutes ethnic Russians when they are not Russian citizens?
Putin has claimed as part of his justification for the invasion, the eradication of Neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine. And yes there is credible evidence of the existence of Neo-Nazis in Ukraine, but that fact itself still does not justify Putin’s invasion. Who made it Putin’s responsibility for combating foreign Nazi elements. Would Putin consider invading the US if a Nazi movement arose in the US? Whatever Putin’s justifications are for this aggression, none of it is justified, not until Ukraine or NATO took any active military action against Russia should Russia have the right to invade.
I get the dangers that come with defying Russia—the looming threat of nuclear war—but Putin should not hold the world to ransom just because he has nukes. And yes, my position may look idealistic and impractical, and I admit they are given the current realities, and yes Zelensky’s demand that Russia leaves all Ukrainian territory including Crimea may seem unattainable, I have no doubts about that, but my philosophical point stands. Putin had no business in Ukraine in the first place and his nuclear leverage doesn’t change that. Lest the world forgets, when Hitler annexed Austria and the Sudetenland in 1938, the European powers let him have it as a measure of appeasement to avoid a catastrophic war, we all know how well that worked out.
The strongest point the right has is that Zelensky should negotiate with Russia, and come to an agreement which may include agreeing that Ukraine never becomes a member of NATO. This seems like common sense and an obvious solution if proposed by Ukraine and accepted by Russia, yet somehow it bothers my soul that the military alliance of a sovereign state is being determined by its neighbor. I find that irreconcilable with my unwavering support for the principle of state independence and the natural self-determination of a country. I certainly would not want my country's foreign policy to be dictated by a foreign entity.
So, given this, I applaud Zelensky’s tenacity, his doggedness, and even his diplomatic skills in being able to acquire the necessary military support for his country. Whatever Russia’s justification for invading Ukraine, the message to be sent to Russia in no uncompromising terms should be that, invading another country is not an acceptable way of doing business in the twenty-first century and that we—the world—do not negotiate with terrorists.
Charles Ekokotu (Pharm. D.) is a bibliophile, prose fiction writer, poet, and playwright. His first self-published novel, Hotel Shendam—a crime fiction novel featuring a debate on race and colonialism—is available on Amazon. A very fun read! Grab a copy now!
Follow Charles Ekokotu on
"Most recently, Afghanistan’s western-backed government collapsed in days following the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, the president fled almost immediately."
This is a highly unfair inaccurate comment.
About 100,000 Afghan National Security Forces died in combat. If 1.5 times as many were wounded as died in combat the Afghan National Security Force, then about the Afghan National Security Forces suffered about 250,000 casualties.
Foreign UN, UNAMA, ISAF forces mostly abandoned Afghans in 2014. Afghans have been fighting on their own against the Pakistani Army and their proxies since 2014, taking catastrophic casualties. Foreigners resupplied and funded the Afghan National Security Forces, however, albeit at a much lower level than the UN ISAF had suggested in 2009.
In 2021, the international community cut off the funding, logistics and resupply for the Afghan National Security Forces. In addition Biden, Iran, China backed the Pakistani invasion of Afghanistan in 2021. Biden also shut off the software of the Afghan National Security Forces. Afghans suddenly didn't know where their vehicles and soldiers were, since their GPS had been shut down. Afghans were also unable to use their drones. Afghan aircraft lacked fuel and munitions to drop.
If Afghans had gotten the support Ukraine got in 2022 and 2023 from foreign countries, the Afghans would still be fighting.
President Ghani was pressured to leave Afghanistan by Biden who was de facto trying to facilitate the Pakistani take over of Afghanistan. Biden repeatedly blamed Ghani for there not being a cease fire in Afghanistan and for Ghani being anti Pakistan anti Taliban. Biden promised a cease fire and implied Ghani broke it.