Volodymyr Zelenskyy: A Comedian Leading a Losing War in a Rigged Game
Volodymyr Zelenskyy: A Comedian Leading a Losing War in a Rigged Game
Embedded Files
THIS IS AN ARTICLE WRITTEN PURELY AS AN OPINION OF CURRENT AFFAIRS BY THE AUTHOR
Share this article!
20 March 2025
Last Updated: 20 March 2025 - 21:27 CET
Chaitanya Nitin Harak
Map of Ukraine, including disputed territories
Today's dominant Western narrative has framed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a heroic leader, defending his nation against external aggression. However, from non-Western perspective, his leadership has been marked by political power consolidation, unrealistic peace deal demands, and an unwillingness to engage in meaningful negotiations. Rather than steering Ukraine toward a pragmatic resolution, Zelenskyy has chosen a path of prolonged conflict, which has had global consequences beyond Eastern Europe alone.
This portrayal overlooks the fact that Ukraine’s situation is not just about military resistance but also about political choices that have exacerbated the crisis. Zelenskyy’s approach has often prioritized Western interests, and his own personal interests over the immediate welfare of Ukrainians, leading to policies that have deepened the humanitarian and economic toll of the war. The recent fallout with the U.S. led to a drastic reduction in the funding for the war, resulting in a decline in morale within the Ukranian fighting forces, severly impacting the prospects of an amicable peace deal betweek Kyiv and Moscow. Where does Zelenskyy go from here?
Ukraine's Democratic Backsliding and Economic Consequences
Ukraine's Democratic Backsliding and Economic Consequences
Zelenskyy has outright rejected diplomatic efforts, multiple times, that could lead to a possible ceasefire, insisting on the complete withdrawal of Russian forces before any negotiations can take place. This position, while politically convenient for Western backers, including the European members of NATO and other Western institutions, ignores military realities, ensuring that the war drags on indefinitely. With Ukraine's military suffering heavy casualties lately, and an economic collapse, his insistence on absolute victory is not just unrealistic but also detrimental to Ukraine itself. The war has led to mass conscription, reports of forced recruitment, and a declining population as millions flee the country. Instead of working toward a solution that could prevent further suffering, Zelenskyy has allowed Ukraine to become a battleground for Western geopolitical interests, prolonging the devastation while Western nations watch from a distance.
Zelenskyy has also consolidated power domestically in ways that contradict the democratic ideals he claims to uphold. While many popular media sources remain determined to claim his leadership as the greatest example of a strong modern leader, a modern David facing the Russian Goliath, his actions starkly contradict his portrayal. His government has banned opposition parties, postponed elections indefinitely, and placed major media outlets under state control. The suppression of dissent and political opposition raises serious concerns about Ukraine’s internal governance, especially when the West continues to frame it as a beacon of democracy. As an Indian and a citizen of the world's largest democracy, I find myself in a position where fully endorsing Ukraine’s leadership is increasingly difficult, particularly when democratic norms are being sidelined in favor of wartime power consolidation.
The global impact of the war extends beyond Ukraine’s borders, as its consequences disproportionately affect developing nations. Rising energy prices, supply chain disruptions, and food shortages have placed notable economic strain on nations of the Global South and other non-Western economies. Rather than alleviating these issues, Zelenskyy’s government has exacerbated them by pushing for continued Western military support and sanctions on Russia. India, which maintains strong energy and trade relations with Russia, has been forced to navigate these economic pressures while facing Western criticism for not fully aligning with Ukraine. From a non-European standpoint, a prolonged war primarily benefits Western arms manufacturers and policymakers, while nations like India grapple with its destabilizing effects on global trade and economic security.
Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the White House, 2025 | Saul Loeb, AFP
European Over-dependence on U.S. Defence Spending and Strategic Miscalculations
European Over-dependence on U.S. Defence Spending and Strategic Miscalculations
Europe’s handling of the conflict has further exposed a macro-level policy mismatch. As India's External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar aptly remarked, "Europe has to grow out of the mindset that Europe's problems are the world's problems, but the world's problems are not Europe's problems." While European leaders speak of countering Russian aggression, NATO’s continued expansion eastward since 1991 has fueled the very tensions they claim to oppose. By increasing military deployments near Russia’s borders and pushing Ukraine toward deeper NATO integration, the West has created a self-fulfilling prophecy, reinforcing Moscow’s perception of a security threat.
This cycle of escalation has left Ukraine entrenched in a proxy war, with Western nations heavily influencing its military strategy. Rather than seeking a resolution, European leaders have opted to sustain the war through military aid, prolonging the conflict and deepening regional instability. In many ways, Europe’s approach mirrors the U.S. strategy during the Soviet-Afghan War, where prolonged Western support for Afghan insurgents drained Soviet resources and contributed to the USSR’s eventual decline. Similarly, by turning Ukraine into a battleground for geopolitical rivalry, the West appears intent on making the war as costly for Russia as possible, regardless of the long-term consequences for Ukraine itself.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte visitis Sarajevo and Pristina | NATO
Yet, even as Europe fuels this conflict, it remains critically dependent on U.S. military support. For over 25 years, European states have relied heavily on American defense spending while neglecting their own military capabilities. This over-dependence has allowed them to maintain social welfare programs and avoid the financial burden of large-scale defense investments. However, as the U.S. shifts its focus toward the Indo-Pacific and faces increasing domestic political pressure to reduce overseas commitments, European nations will be forced to confront their own military shortcomings. Their long-standing reliance on American security guarantees is becoming unsustainable, and this growing vulnerability may weaken their ability to project power in future conflicts.
This exact contradiction in real power exposes a deeper flaw in Europe’s strategic calculations. While positioning Ukraine as a tool to weaken Russia, European leaders have overlooked their own military fragility. If Washington deprioritized Europe in favor of countering China, the EU may find itself ill-equipped to manage its own security challenges, let alone sustain prolonged military engagements. The war in Ukraine, rather than showcasing European strength, underscores its over-dependence—a reality that could significantly reshape transatlantic relations in the coming years.
This vulnerability is further illustrated when we consider the relative size of European military forces. For example, the New York Police Department is larger in personnel numbers than the entire UK military and most European armies. Despite being home to some of the world's largest and most influential economies, Europe’s military capabilities are often dwarfed by their reliance on the U.S. This stark contrast between Europe’s economic power and its military weakness highlights the strategic shortcomings that could leave the continent exposed in the face of future crises.
From an Indian’s perspective, the most rational path forward is negotiation, yet Zelenskyy has refused to embrace this option. His alignment with NATO, suppression of political opposition, and reliance on Western military aid has left Ukraine increasingly dependent on external actors who are more interested in prolonging the conflict than in securing peace. If Ukraine is serious about its survival as a functioning state, it must recognize that indefinite warfare is unsustainable, both in humanitarian and economic terms. The longer the war continues, the greater the losses for Ukraine and the more difficult it becomes to rebuild. For India and other non-Western economies, a swift diplomatic resolution is in the best interest of global stability. The refusal to pursue this course only ensures that Ukraine remains caught in a conflict with no clear end in sight.
Conclusion: Where Does Ukraine Go From Here?
Conclusion: Where Does Ukraine Go From Here?
In my view, the war in Ukraine has reached a breaking point. Continuing down the path of military escalation is not only unsustainable, but it’s also doing more harm than good. Zelenskyy’s refusal to consider diplomatic options, coupled with his heavy reliance on Western military support, has prolonged the suffering of his people and destabilized economies worldwide, particularly in the Global South. Europe’s strategic vulnerabilities, with its long-standing dependence on U.S. defense spending, only complicate matters further. The longer this conflict drags on, the more difficult it will be for Ukraine to recover—economically, politically, and socially. If Ukraine’s leadership truly cares about the survival and future of its state, it must face the reality that indefinite warfare is not the answer. The time for a pragmatic, diplomatic resolution is now—before more lives are lost and global stability is pushed to the brink. The world cannot afford to continue on this destructive path. Ukraine has a choice: to remain trapped in a never-ending conflict or to seek a peaceful resolution that puts the well-being of its people and the broader international community first.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse