The Tragedy of Zelensky

The ability to lead effectively during wartime is fundamentally different from leading in peacetime.

Most would agree that Winston Churchill was an extraordinary leader during World War II. His unwavering determination and compelling speeches, emphasizing the importance of never surrendering and relentlessly fighting against the brutal regime of Nazi Germany, played a pivotal role in ensuring England’s survival and eventual triumph.

By the beginning of 1945, as victory in World War II seemed imminent, Churchill enjoyed remarkable popularity and respect both domestically and internationally. However, during the UK general election held between May and July of that year, his Conservative Party faced a stunning defeat, securing only 36.2% of the votes. In stark contrast, the Labor Party dominated with 47.7%, while the Liberal Party obtained just 9%.

In light of this electoral setback, Churchill quickly submitted his resignation to King George VI, who was left astonished by the election results and had no option but to accept his decision.

Were the British people ungrateful for removing their esteemed wartime leader shortly after he steered them to a total victory? Absolutely not. After a protracted and arduous war, the public was eager for change. They yearned to rebuild their lives and to embrace a new, hopeful future. However, during the election campaign, Winston Churchill and his Conservative Party were unable to present a clear agenda or policies to lead Britain in this new era. Many voters recognized that Churchill was “ill-suited to be a leader in times of peace,” prompting them to seek new leadership.

The ability to lead effectively during wartime is fundamentally different from leading in peacetime. The determination and resilience that define a successful wartime leader do not always translate to peacetime governance. Conversely, a peacetime leader must exhibit political savvy, adaptability, negotiation skills, and a keen understanding that public policies require careful trade-offs and prioritization. There is a Japanese proverb, saying "The bamboo that bends is stronger than the oak that resists." This bamboo like flexibility is an essential but often overlooked component of effective leadership in peacetime.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy evokes a sense of Churchillian spirit. Since his 2019 election as a political outsider, Zelenskyy has faced an array of daunting challenges. First, the global pandemic significantly disrupted everyday life. Then, Vladimir Putin, a ruthless dictator entrenched in power since 2012, launched an invasion, further complicating an already precarious situation.

Some argue that Ukraine’s discussions about joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) provoked Putin. While there may be a grain of truth in this viewpoint, it is crucial to understand that Putin did not require provocation to invade Ukraine. His ambitions of restoring the territorial grandeur of the Russian Empire are well-documented, and Ukraine has always been a central piece of that puzzle.

In 2014, he executed a brazen invasion and annexation of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula without any real provocation. Since then, he has been biding his time, waiting for the ideal moment to strike again. Following the Biden administration's chaotic and humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, Putin likely concluded that the window to act had finally opened. He presumed that neither Europe, dependent on Russian energy, nor a struggling United States under a faltering president would intervene effectively.