In the complex and often murky world of international politics, decisions made by leaders can have far-reaching consequences. One such decision was Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s refusal to negotiate a ceasefire, despite the potential for saving countless lives and preventing further destruction.
Zelenskyy emphasized the atrocities committed by Russian forces, including the mistreatment of prisoners—a practice reported on both sides of the conflict—and the abduction of nearly 20,000 Ukrainian (or Russian?) children from neglected orphanages found in areas predominantly occupied by ethnic Russians. By showing pictures of abuse of soldiers and emphasizing the suffering of children, Zelenskyy appeared to be attempting to garner support from President Trump, a loving family man with children and grandchildren, known for his decisive actions, e.g. in Syria 2017. An emotional appeal aimed at manipulating Trump’s and public sentiment rather than a genuine effort to seek peace. Is it that Zelenskyy hoped to leverage these atrocities to gain support from Trump, much like how Trump reacted strongly to the use of chemical weapons in Syria? On the 7th of April 2017, Trump ordered a missile strike on Syria in response to a chemical weapons attack that killed civilians, including children. This decision was influenced by his strong emotional response to the suffering of children, and it’s conceivable that Zelenskyy hoped to evoke a similar reaction by highlighting the plight of Ukrainian (or ethnic Russian) children.
Zelenskyy’s stance was clear: he wanted the United States, under President Trump, and NATO to join him in a full-scale war against Russian President Vladimir Putin. The goal was to defeat Putin, much like the U.S. did with Saddam Hussein in Iraq. However, this approach was fraught with risks and potential pitfalls.
Trump, an astute leader known for his straightforward approach to politics, saw through Zelenskyy’s plan. He understood that a ceasefire, even if temporary, could provide a much-needed respite for the people of Ukraine. This was not Zelenskyy’s priority, defeating Putin was his aim! Did he dream that he would be the ‘hero’, the defender of democracy, chasing the terrorist, killer, etc. Putin out of Moscow, like Saddam Hussein had been humiliated by Bush? Willing to pay any cost while his country under his leadership is destroyed, millions suffering death, destruction, etc. while Russia under Putin’s leadership is flourishing in spite of current challenges?
Trump’s focus was on immediate truce and leveraging his influence over Putin to ensure stability. He recognized that a full-scale war would not only lead to more bloodshed but also destabilize the region further. By initiating a ceasefire, Trump aimed to stop the deaths and negotiate with Putin for a long-term, permanent peace that would be acceptable to both parties. In the art of the deal, it’s about give and take so that both parties win.
The focus on past grievances, while important, overshadowed the immediate need to halt the ongoing suffering and destruction.
In this case, it would be essential to ask ordinary Ukrainians for their vote on what they want, rather than solely relying on Zelenskyy’s perspective. The voices of ordinary Ukrainians, who desperately want to live in peace, should be of utmost importance. The Ukrainian ambassador, representing these ordinary citizens, seemed practically ashamed and near tears with Zelenskyy’s approach, as many Ukrainians were sad and angry with their leader’s refusal to negotiate.
With Trump behind the ceasefire, Putin would never cross him. The human cost of such a conflict would be immense, with ordinary people bearing the brunt of the violence. The geopolitical landscape is already complicated, and adding more fuel to the fire would only exacerbate the situation.
Trump’s approach, on the other hand, prioritized immediate peace and stability. He understood that a ceasefire, backed by strong security guarantees, could provide a foundation for lasting peace. By refusing to negotiate, Zelenskyy missed an opportunity to save lives and prevent further destruction. It might tarnish his image a ‘hero’, the savior who defeated Putin?
In the end, the decisions made by leaders have profound impacts on the lives of ordinary people. It’s crucial for leaders to prioritize peace and stability while ensuring the safety and security of their nations. Zelenskyy’s refusal to negotiate a ceasefire may have been a missed opportunity, but it’s not too late for a resolution that minimizes suffering and brings lasting peace to the region.
Did he really go to the White House for a ceasefire or for an opportunity for a face to face with Trump to convince him to join him and NATO in the war against Putin?
Is that the reason Trump sent Zelenskyy packing from the White House? No place for a ‘hero’ who would rather his own country be destroyed in the name of democracy, when millions are suffering to death, for his own personal ego and political survival at the cost of ordinary Ukrainians?
Luckily for the American public, Trump, as a perceptive leader, saw through Zelenskyy’s agenda, unlike Biden who indulged it at American tax payers’ expense. That increased national debt to then 36+ trillion when he left the office.
