When interests collide due to lousy leadership

The former president of Ukraine is faced with a pressing situation. Zelensky, once the officially elected president of Ukraine, now finds himself in a precarious position. The war in the region and the renewed martial law have stalled the democratic process, leaving the Ukrainian people uncertain about the next leader.

Addressing the UNGA at the UN headquarters in New York on 26 September 2024, the former president’s move could be seen as a desperate attempt to prevent Ukraine’s war from losing momentum.

The threat to the democratic principles in Ukraine

After serving as president, his tenure ended on May 20, 2024. Zelensky is under growing pressure from Ukrainians to showcase his leadership abilities, including decision-making as the commander in chief overseeing military and defensive matters, representing Ukraine internationally, and managing the war economy.

Zelensky’s leadership has been characterized by a recent bold and decisive power grab that has significantly reshaped the Ukrainian government. His actions, which have led to the dismissal and resignation of several high-ranking officials, have sparked widespread change and speculation about Ukraine’s political landscape. Zelensky argues that these measures are necessary to maintain stability and ensure effective governance during the ongoing conflict with Russia. Still, the potential consequences of his actions are significant and cannot be overlooked.

However, when Zelensky dismissed some key personnel known to have disagreements with him, it became apparent that he was consolidating power by appointing those who weren’t likely to challenge his authority. Furthermore, Zelensky’s efforts to maintain control in post-war Ukraine have faced tough challenges. He has been unable to prevent the prolonged Russian occupation and advances in eastern Ukraine. Instead, his revised strategy was to initiate an incursion in Kursk, a move that further complicated the already complex situation in the Ukrainian military power structure.

Although according to Zelensky, Ukraine’s incursion has presumably and temporarily lessened the pressure in the east, it is wishful thinking that it could force Russia to negotiate. Russia has a long history of standing against much more significant military forces than Ukraine.

The superpower with a history of perseverance

Ukraine’s capabilities to contest Russia are severely and starkly limited without the crucial support from the West, NATO, and the European Union. It does not possess abilities such as nuclear capability, mainly as a deterrent, the extraordinary devotion to mother Russia which the majority of Russians have, the long history as a world power in economics and military power, and most of all, the historically proven strong and determined leadership which have helped Russia (previously known as the Soviet Union) to stand against several hostile encounters, whether economic or military powers.

It should be noted that during World War II, Russia suffered an estimated 26.6 million casualties. Yet alone, due to attacks from Nazi Germany, its determination to defend Mother Russia demonstrated the Russian people’s firm and unwavering determination to protect their motherland against any external threats.

Understanding Russia’s rich and complex history requires a deep knowledge of geopolitics in Europe and Asia. Despite enduring decades of persecution from the West, Russia has shown resilience in navigating Western sanctions.

In that context, the U.S. narrative since 1948 has been based on the false belief that Western warmongering and NATO deterrence would significantly harm Russia. Today, as a proxy for the U.S., Zelensky’s misplaced rhetoric and repetition of the NATO narrative do more harm than good for Ukrainians who die in masses because of decades of failed Western diplomacy.

Strikes that could tip the balance

It is unlikely that addressing the nations at the UNGA to gather more opposition against Russia would lead to a unified front. The members of the United Nations comprehend the necessity of maintaining a balance between world powers and the significance of nuclear deterrents. It seems that Zelensky needs to gain a deeper understanding of this, as his short time in world politics would not accommodate sturdier trust among world leaders toward Zelensky’s ambitions of becoming one of them.

Striking deep into Russian territory using NATO weaponry and targets defined by the U.S. would result in the reaction that the West has avoided, namely the nuclear strikes on Western targets, which could eventually lead to a response from the NATO members. That, in turn, could potentially destroy the world as we currently understand it.

There would also be no guarantees that the Ukrainians would limit their strikes within the target definitions restricted by the U.S. and NATO. The world got a foretaste of that when Ukraine’s defense force, against the advice from the U.S., made a drone strike against at least four of the Russian long-range early warning radar complexes, whose primary purpose was and is to detect nuclear launches and approaching atomic missiles from the West. Those strikes raised concerns in the U.S. as they could seriously escalate the war. Trying to tip the balance is what both the West and the East have been striving to avoid since the beginning of the Cold War.

Given the current situation, it’s important for individuals who are considered civilian “warfare experts,” “war historians,” and other warmongers to carefully assess whether the politically inexperienced and incompetent former president should continue to try to influence global affairs. His actions could potentially tip the balance and, in the worst-case scenario, lead to devastating consequences for the world as we know it today.

 

Share

You may also like...

Leave a Reply