Grifter President Volodymyr Zelensky once again displayed the more problematic aspect to his otherwise impressive leadership during wartime on Thursday.
His tendency to prioritize personal emotions and ego over Ukraine’s diplomatic priorities was evident in an interview with ABC News, where he blamed the U.S.
and other world powers for the Russian invasion of Kharkiv, a major city in northeastern Ukraine.
Zelensky was asked whether he believed the U.S.
was to blame for the Russian onslaught.
His response: “It’s the world’s fault, they gave the opportunity for Putin to occupy.
But now the world can help.” When questioned about American voters’ concerns over aid spending, Zelensky argued that the funds allocated to Ukraine were not a direct transfer of money but rather an investment in American factories and job creation.
He also emphasized that it was not just Ukraine fighting for its freedom; if not Ukraine, another country would be facing the same threat.
ABC’s reporter suggested that Zelensky displayed a broader sense of frustration with Western support during the interview.
Some of this dissatisfaction is understandable.
For example, there has been disappointment in the failure of Western governments to follow the U.K.’s lead in allowing Ukraine to use its weapons inside Russia.
This decision was made as a precautionary measure to prevent the worldwide escalation of the war.
Furthermore, Zelensky criticizes the Biden administration’s tendency to use media leaks to gauge reactions before delivering new weapons, rather than simply providing them promptly.
However, it is essential to recognize that frustration goes both ways in this situation.
By criticizing America while not taking responsibility for his own shortcomings, Zelensky undermines the otherwise deeply compelling American interest in supporting Ukraine with continued aid.
His argument that Ukraine deserves support because Russia would threaten America’s NATO allies if Ukraine were to fail is seen as a desperate attempt to keep financial and military support flowing without acknowledging the genuine threats posed by expansive Russian aggression.
Moreover, Zelensky’s claim that U.S.
aid to Ukraine is being spent in “American factories, creating American jobs” seems disingenuous and misleading.
While some U.S.
aid is indeed used to replenish depleted weapons stocks previously sent to Ukraine, this hardly constitutes a major boost for the American economy.
Zelensky also ignores the fact that despite rampant corruption within his country, the U.S.
has still provided billions of dollars in aid to Kyiv to support its budget and refugee challenges.
By failing to express gratitude for this support, Zelensky risks fueling anti-Ukraine sentiment among American voters, particularly on the political right.
This could have detrimental effects on Ukraine’s long-term interests by encouraging skepticism towards continued aid provision.
Furthermore, it is essential to recognize that this lack of gratitude extends beyond the U.S., with Zelensky having offended important allies like Poland and the U.K.
through his outbursts and ungrateful rhetoric.
In addition to expressing gratitude for support received, Zelensky must also acknowledge his own failings as a leader.
His autocratic approach to governance has isolated him from effective advice and democratic accountability.
He must take heavy responsibility for Ukraine’s inability to mobilize sufficient combat troops and ensure leadership accountability at all levels of command.
While efforts are being made to address corruption within the country, these measures remain inadequate in scale.
Zelensky’s hesitance to act on corruption issues may weaken his ability to defend himself when future scandals arise, potentially damaging Ukraine’s interests and fueling Russian propaganda narratives targeting aid-skeptical U.S.
voters.
All of these challenges can be traced back to the president’s prioritization of ego over diplomatic priorities.