Extolled to the extreme by his decision to remain in kyiv when Russian troops entered Ukraine and for his moral and political leadership since then, Volodymyr Zelensky is now in the critics’ bullseye for his alleged inaction in the months leading up to the invasion. The ‘Washington Post’ has just revealed that, since last October, Washington had very detailed information about the Russian plans and unsuccessfully tried to convince the Ukrainian president and European allies that an invasion was imminent. His lack of response -by not declaring martial law, not activating a general mobilization, not destroying the bridges and crossing points that could be used by the invaders & mldr;- would have meant, according to his critics, a unnecessary loss of human life and unbearable material destructionwhich mortgages the country’s future indefinitely.
Related news
In his defence, forced to choose between the bad and the worst, Zelensky has argued that doing such a thing would have a general panic and a massive population flight, which would have meant a greater probability that the country would collapse and it would be impossible to organize a resistance like the one that has been achieved until today. As on so many previous occasions, it is very tempting (and useless) to prophesy about past events that cannot be reversed. First of all, it must be remembered that at that time Washington was not exactly a very reliable source of information, after the discredit suffered by its intelligence agencies in the painful withdrawal from Afghanistan. On the other hand, Ukraine was already at war with Russia since 2014 and, although on numerous occasions the hypothesis of a Russian invasion had been handled, can never be taken for granted mathematically that something subject to so many imponderables is going to happen inevitably. Similarly, no one is in a position to determine what would have been the result of opting for a different attitude from the one actually chosen, neither in terms of human lives saved nor the level of destruction of infrastructure or housing.
Hence, playing “what would have happened if Zelenski…”, in addition to being a useless exercise, it only serves to weaken a leader that it is facing a dramatic situation, with a notable deterioration of the macroeconomic variables and the well-being of its population, and with a war for which there is no end in sight in the short term. All this, in the midst of the growing pressure that it is already suffering from its own Western allies, increasingly fearful that Moscow will cut off their energy supply, so that accept as soon as possible the partition of the country in the terms that Russia determines. Zelensky is not a pristine politician and not only has he not been able to end the corruption of the Ukrainian system, but he has also made controversial decisions – such as the outlawing of some pro-Russian parties and the closure of some media outlets. He too has made and will make mistakes that carry considerable costs. But it is Zelensky himself who has been able to unite a structurally fragmented country against the invader and that has joined dozens of countries in its support, not only formally but with a supply of weapons that is proving vital to, in the first instance, stop the Russian troops, and, now, to take the initiative in Kherson and even in the Crimea. And he is also the one that right now is holding back the Russian desire to expand its area of influence in Europe. Let’s not forget it.