To understand Volodymyr Zelensky

By: Ricardo Israel - 03/08/2025

Share:     

To understand him properly, we must divide him into two: before and after the Russian invasion. Afterward, the actor and politician became a global celebrity, not only for the media but also for many politicians, for whom the photographs together were an important asset. In the process, the person became a character, including the wardrobe for his public appearances, a kind of uniform, solely for his use. It was a great communication effort, but it failed to penetrate outside the West, as the Global South was not convinced.

This transformation from person to character is key to the image we've formed, but it must be combined with a second fact of equal importance: that in Ukraine he never enjoyed the unanimous sympathy with which he was received in other countries. Instead, over the years, he has experienced all the ups and downs that accompany the political profession, as well as the vicissitudes of the war. Furthermore, the Ukrainians elected him as an actor, so the person has predominated over the character.

So much so that, if the presidential elections were held today, the favorite would be the same one who would have won when it was decided not to call elections last year, perhaps for that reason: General Valery Zaluzhnyi, currently ambassador to the United Kingdom, whose popularity stems from the fact that as commander-in-chief he is credited with the successful defense of the country, and who was recalled, blaming him for the failure of the 2023 offensive.

Zelensky has always said he grew up in an "ordinary Soviet Jewish family," "not very religious," so much so that he "grew up speaking Russian," alongside his parents: he was a cybernetics professor and his mother, an engineer. He told the BBC that he only began learning Ukrainian when he entered formal education and found himself learning it, which also gives an idea of two things: the Russification of the Soviet empire, and the close ties between the territories that eventually became different countries. His candidacy was announced on the last day of 2018, overshadowing the message of Petro Poroshenko, then the president. He acted this way because polls showed that if he ran, he would be a candidate with a chance. His TV show was so successful that he named his party after the series, "Servant of the People," in which the character was an idealistic man who wanted to change things for the better.

His campaign was primarily virtual through social media, with the populist rhetoric of "the people" versus "the elite" and the promise of fighting corruption, a theme that figured so prominently that even today it explains why he was forced this July to reverse a reform that, according to the majority of Ukrainians and the European Union, was not a reform at all, because it weakened anti-corruption agencies. He also accused the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), the successor to the former KGB, of authoritarianism in its actions against investigating prosecutors. Europeans, who are now more vocal than before, pointed out that there were still "reforms pending" to advance on the path toward Europe. Moreover, when Russia invaded, Zelensky was experiencing a period of low popularity, due, among other things, to frustration with the fulfillment of his promises. In this regard, we must never forget what is not always remembered, that it was Russia that violated international law with the invasion, but that in international statistics on both corruption and democracy, Ukraine then ranked very close to Russia, at the bottom, so much so that in economics, the Ukrainian "oligarchs" were not very different from the Russians, not only because of their monopolistic control but also because of the irregular way in which they had acquired their wealth, with the added benefit that politicians had less control over them, important to know what Zelensky could and can do, since he has never, not even remotely, had power similar to Putin's, not even at times when the war seemed to favor kyiv.

Before becoming a politician, Zelensky was a lawyer, owner of an audiovisual production company, and actor. As a comedian, he had a show and a persona that allowed him to become president on his first attempt. The campaign was so successful that, to fully understand it, I watched a couple of episodes of his series, subtitled in English, on YouTube. Everything indicates that the campaign atmosphere coincided with what was portrayed on TV: disillusionment with democracy and rejection of traditional politicians. He clearly won the second round, obtaining no less than 73.22% of the vote on April 21, 2019. This allowed him to announce at his inauguration ceremony the dissolution of the Rada, or parliament, and the call for early elections, which gave the newly formed party, for the first time in Ukraine's electoral history, an absolute majority.

It was, by the way, his finest hour, as from then on he had to grapple with the well-known issue of unmet expectations, especially regarding his central promise to fight corruption. Furthermore, the fact that he triumphed while the execution of his platform remained a complete mystery contributed to his success, given that during the campaign he avoided interviews and participating in political programs, relying primarily on the young electorate.

Along with the fight against corruption, another significant campaign promise was, and I quote here, "ending the war in Donbas and resolving the Russian-sponsored separatist movement." In addition, albeit with less hope, to the recovery of Crimea, it was also an opportunity for the reappearance of the much-criticized old politicians, as on June 3 he appointed former President Leonid Kuchma as his representative to the Tripartite Contact Group for the conflict resolution. The following month, after visiting the European Union and NATO in Brussels, on July 11, 2019, he held his first telephone conversation with Vladimir Putin to invite him to meet and participate in talks with Ukraine, the United States, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom in Minsk. I mention this to highlight the continuity of certain schemes and participants, despite the passage of time, as well as that conversation, since it is the only thing that seems to have yielded concrete results, then as it is now the prisoner exchange.

Regarding his campaign promise, in October 2019, he announced a preliminary agreement reached with the separatists, according to which the government would respect the elections held in the region in exchange for Russia withdrawing its troops. This agreement has been met with protests and criticism, even though Zelensky continues to defend it, arguing that there would be no elections before the Russian withdrawal. In any case, it was of little use, as the separatists continued to attack and Russia continued to supply them with weapons. However, on the Ukrainian side, nationalist militias with a name still in use, the Azov Battalion, also refused to accept the agreement.

In December 2019, Russia and Ukraine agreed to resume meetings. This time, France and Germany revived the Normandy Four, which had been abandoned in 2016, allowing for the first face-to-face meeting with Putin to take place in Paris. In July 2020, a formal ceasefire with the separatists was announced—no less than the twentieth such attempt since 2014. This sheds light on how Russia is responding to similar requests from Donald Trump today, as well as showing that Zelensky's current desire to meet with Putin is by no means new. These were also the days in kyiv when none other than the Roman Titus Livy (59 BC–17 AD) was approvingly quoting, "A sure peace is better than a hoped-for victory."

Let us also remember that both sides had previously failed to comply with the Minsk Agreements, two sets of agreements signed in 2014 and 2015 to end the war in the Donbas region. Ukraine and Russia, for the first and only time, recognized the two separatist republics, the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic. The main objective, which had been achieved at the time, was a ceasefire between the Ukrainian army and separatist forces. This agreement did not last, among other reasons, due to the mutual failure to meet the objective of decentralizing power in Ukraine with constitutional reforms that would grant autonomy to those regions, something still pending. Perhaps this was triggered by the banning of pro-Russian political parties in the Rada.

At a time of dismay over Russia's refusal to agree to even a ceasefire, it is useful to allow for a review of what was signed, although this was not the only area where there was non-compliance, as this also occurred with the Budapest Memorandum, which brought together the assurances given to Ukraine by the US and the UK when it renounced the atomic bombs that remained on its territory when the USSR disappeared in 1994, and where kyiv rightly feels that it was not fulfilled.

Also, to get an idea of how Zelensky might proceed in the future, it is important to remember two other things: that in any decision made in negotiations with Russia, the near certainty that if there is a ceasefire, the Ukrainian president will be pressured to call elections, which did not take place precisely on the grounds that the fighting made it impossible, above all, due to the influence that an agreement, good or bad, could have on their outcome, will play a significant role. The other is that, with the recent resumption of a direct meeting between the two delegations in Istanbul, it is worth reviewing that, in that city, in February-April 2022, shortly after the start of the invasion, Ukraine and Russia held five rounds of contacts that all ended in failure.

Today we know that everything stalled when Russia presented new demands at the same time that, according to a biography, Zelensky rejected the requests after visiting Bucha, where a massacre of civilians at the hands of Russian soldiers had taken place. Meanwhile, according to the then chief Ukrainian negotiator, David Arajamia, it was British Prime Minister Boris Johnson who arrived with a personal message from Joe Biden, urging him not to give in and assuring allied support until victory. In any case, the new Russian demands amounted to a surrender.

The mediating role that Erdogan and Turkey have continued to play remains interesting, in addition to the efforts that the US requested from Israel at that time, given the understanding they reached with Putin in the Syrian civil war, where they never clashed despite having been on opposite sides. These efforts also failed and were abandoned after then-Prime Minister Naftali Bennet personally delivered an offer from Putin to Ukraine, which was evidently not appreciated. Furthermore, according to press reports, Bennet was considered pro-Russian.

They are interesting to remember, because the war—and in this sense Trump is right—has long been at a standstill, almost frozen, but with Russian initiative, which in practice translates into terrible punishment of populated areas of Ukraine, with almost daily missile and drone attacks, against which Ukraine simply does not have adequate defenses, resulting in merciless punishment of civilians.

Surely Ukraine is not fooled that despite its willingness to make changes in its defense investment, Europe still lacks both strategic vision and sufficient political will, so despite what was recently agreed, it continues to have weak global relevance in geopolitics, and too slow in decision-making, requiring unanimity, along with an inefficient and costly bureaucracy, added to the problems of internal cohesion, also due to the lack of a common purpose among the different countries due to the lack of a federal structure, in addition to the problems created by immigration with sectors that do not wish to integrate and that reject the culture that welcomed them.

And the United States?

The truth is that just as President Trump has changed his mind several times, he can do so again, and just as Ukraine cannot fully trust Europe, I think it has learned that it cannot fully trust the US either, which can always force them to accept, even if they don't like it, a territorial negotiation, without forgetting that a ceasefire, under current conditions, with Russia still occupying 20% of Ukraine's surface area, would be equivalent to what the ceasefires with Korea in 1953, and Israel with the Arabs in 1949 were, that is, until today, de facto borders.

In any case, and despite everything on the table today, what could best serve Ukraine and, at the same time, serve as a deterrent against Russia is the agreement for US investments in exchange for the exploitation of rare earths, not only because of the US need for these metals, but also because US laws would apply in those places, which would imply a long-term understanding. Furthermore, since there is no other strategic interest, it is better than what is happening so quietly, which is the systematic purchase of agricultural land and Ukrainian debt by investment funds as large as BlackRock.

Furthermore, although Russia's refusal and even disdain for Trump's requests for a ceasefire have led to stronger rhetoric in Washington, there are situations that could again motivate a change, if there is direct negotiation between Moscow and Washington. Russia's interest is as often proclaimed by Putin: the dissolution of the USSR was so rapid that to this day there has been no agreement with the West on the borders of the former USSR, since, like every empire, 15 independent countries emerged from it. This negotiation, he insists, must be carried out with him and with Russia as its successor. And on the US side, there would be interest in making the reverse trip to Moscow that Nixon made to Beijing in 1972, something equivalent to that week that changed history, only now it would be to reach an agreement that puts an end to the close alliance that Russia and China have today. The real rival for the US, more than Russia, is China. If sanctions have failed now, they would do so even more so with a more difficult rival, given its economic power.

And Zelensky?

If there is a ceasefire, his future will be marked by the calling of elections, and if his past track record is anything to go by, in addition to the obvious concern about a rapprochement between Russia and the US, unlikely today but possible, in a repeat of Kissinger's detente, it would be important for him to follow in detail what is happening today in US domestic politics with the start of investigations being reviewed by the FBI and the Department of Justice into the Biden administration, since everything seems to indicate that since the impeachments of Trump in his first government, something has been pending that also influenced the distancing, which is the fact that it has been accused, until now, only through social networks and related media, that there would have been pressure to fire a prosecutor who was pursuing responsibility for Hunter Biden and in whose dismissal then Vice President Joe Biden, as the person in charge of Ukraine in the Obama administration, would have participated.

It is clear that there is no honeymoon period today, and that only interests prevail, which is more lasting for a relationship between countries, although it is no less true that towards the end of the Biden administration there was some irritation with the displays of moral superiority, rather than of the person, of the character that had been built around Volodomir Zelensky, and that is appearing in the books that today denounce what was previously hidden, such as, for example, that Biden already in 2022 began to show impatience by telling Zelensky by phone that he should show greater gratitude to his government, something that had only been made public when, shortly before the NATO Summit in July 2023, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan responded to an activist who complained that Ukraine was not receiving all the aid it needed, that the American people deserved thanks rather than criticism, and since the person who questioned him was an ordinary citizen, there was no doubt that he wanted to send a message.

And it didn't seem to be a coincidence, since at that same summit, President Biden himself publicly stated that there would be no special treatment for Ukraine's NATO membership; it simply wasn't possible now. It was a change, at least for me, as I wondered in a column for these pages if a rift had emerged in the honeymoon with Zelensky, given that even close allies like Poland strongly criticized Ukraine over the issue of agricultural exports passing through its territory, apparently remaining there for resale.

A change that seems to have reached Western media outlets, which are now talking about how difficult the war situation is for Ukraine and the need for "realism." This is also a change after three years in which Russian defeat was generally predicted. The conclusion is that, after such an intense war, neither Ukraine nor Zelensky seem prepared for a neutrality exit like Austria or Finland in the Cold War.

@israelzipper

Master's and PhD in Political Science (Essex University), Bachelor of Law (University of Barcelona), Lawyer (University of Chile), former presidential candidate (Chile, 2013)

«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».