I don’t know enough to say whether President Zelensky has been a good wartime leader in a micro sense. I’m sure he has made a number of mistakes, but all wartime leaders do if confronted with circumstances as difficult as the ones Zelensky has faced.
In a macro sense, I think Zelensky has done a good job. Although the war isn’t going well now, the Ukrainians have exceeded expectations and punched well above their weight.
Yes, there are signs of disunity, as happens in almost every war fought by a democracy that drags on for more than two years. However, Ukraine’s unity of purpose remains strong. And Zelensky has done a good job of obtaining vital assistance from the U.S. and from European allies.
In my view, though, Zelensky blundered by wading even slightly into U.S. electoral politics. Ideally, Zelensky would have stayed out of the U.S. for another month and a half, until our presidential race is over. But given the increasingly desperate military situation, I don’t blame him for coming here to plead for more aid and, more importantly, for permission to use the aid he’s receiving to a fuller degree.
Zelensky went further, though. In an interview with the New Yorker he said Donald Trump “doesn't really know how to stop the war" in Ukraine, the former president’s claim to the contrary notwithstanding. He also called JD Vance “too radical.”
I don’t believe Trump knows how to stop the war, either. But Zelensky is not a pundit. It’s not his place to opine on the claims of an American presidential candidate.
What did Zelensky accomplish by opining? The only things he might have achieved is to help Harris and to anger Trump.
Zelensky went to Pennsylvania, ground zero in the presidential race, to visit an ammunition factory. Zelensky said he wanted to thank the workers. I assume he also wanted to drive home the important point that most of the money the U.S. is spending on behalf of Ukraine is going to Americans.
But by appearing in the battleground state, in the midst of our campaign, alongside three Democrats, two of whom are up for reelection in November, Zelensky caused Republicans (and not just Trump) to accuse him of taking sides in the election. House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer has gone so far (too far) as to open an investigation of the ammunition factory visit.
If Zelensky wants Harris to win and the Democrats to control Congress, I understand why. Congressional Republicans dragged their feet before finally agreeing to Ukraine’s request for assistance earlier this year. Some statements of Donald Trump and his running mate — especially his running mate — suggest that a Trump administration would be less supportive of Ukraine than a Harris administration would be.
I recognize that during his presidency Trump was more supportive of Ukraine than Barack Obama was. But that’s a very low bar, and it was pre-war. The Biden bar is considerably higher (though not as high as it should be).
Zelensky would be a fool not to take seriously what Trump and his running mate are saying now, in the context of a long war in Ukraine.
At the same time, Zelensky would be a fool to put his eggs in the Democrat basket. Harris might win this election. I think it’s more likely than not that she will.
But it’s also possible that Trump will win. If he does, he won’t forgive Zelensky for siding with, or even tilting towards, Harris.
With Trump, everything is personal. I doubt that he’s seriously pro-Ukraine or pro-Russia. What he is, and always will be, is pro-Trump with a vengeance. If he views Zelensky as having been anti-Trump during the election, there might well be hell to pay for Ukraine.
Even if Trump loses this election, there’s still the matter of congressional Republicans. There’s a good chance the GOP will control at least one chamber of Congress next year.
Getting congressional Republicans to approve aid to Ukraine was difficult enough before Zelensky appeared on our political stage and seemed to take sides. Imagine the difficulty now that he is perceived (with reason) as having done this.
What makes Zelensky seem all the more foolish is that his visit to the U.S. does not appear to have achieved its primary purpose. The Ukrainian president wanted to get Joe Biden’s permission to fire American-made weapons deeper into Russia. Biden did not grant it.
Trump and Zelensky met yesterday. We don’t know what they told each other, but after the meeting Trump, with Zelensky at his side, said that if elected he will work to end the war with a deal “that’s good for both sides."
Trump said the two leaders "have a very good relationship, and I also have a very good relationship, as you know, with President Putin." Zelensky interjected that he hopes he and Trump will continue to have a good relationship.
Trump responded: "It takes two to tango, and we will," This is vintage Trump. The first part of the sentence suggests some displeasure with Zelensky. The second part backs away slightly.
Even though the visit seems to have gone reasonably well, I fear that Zelensky has foolishly impaired his relationship with Trump and with congressional Republicans. Even risking such impairment was a blunder.
I doubt his visit moved the needle toward Harris with any truly undecided voters. (Is there really any such animal at this point?) It definitely hurt him with most Trump supporters.