For a politician, he sure was politically tone-deaf

Sept 30, 2024

By Mark Strand

As someone who admires Volodymyr Zelensky’s courage and leadership, it pains me to say that he may have done more harm than good during his visit to the United States last week. The entire visit was politically tone-deaf, making the future extension of aid from the United States when the current aid package expires less likely.

His visit to a Pennsylvania munitions factory with only Democratic politicians a month before a major election was terminally dumb. While Zelensky may not have been seeking to make this a political event, he, his Ambassador, and his American lobbyists should have known that this was precisely what would happen. The Democrats were only too happy to make this an event that benefitted the Harris campaign and Senator Bob Casey, who is involved in a competitive race. You do not have to be a political scientist to know that in the 2024 presidential election, Pennsylvania is the lynchpin of the battleground states. Whoever wins Pennsylvania likely wins the presidency.

Zelensky may prefer the election of Kamala Harris over Donald Trump, but he can’t afford to alienate Republicans. No aid package is going to pass the Congress without Republican votes. And those Republican votes are much more challenging because support for Ukraine can attract primary challenges. There are no Democrat Senators or Representatives who paid a political price for supporting aid for Ukraine. That is not true for Republicans. Speaker Mike Johnson put his job on the line to get the most recent package through Congress. If Zelensky is going to appear to campaign for the Democrats, how willing will Republicans in the next Congress be to pay the political price for supporting aid again?

Zelensky should never have agreed to that visit unless a bipartisan group of elected officials was attending. There are plenty of Republican representatives in Pennsylvania.

Zelensky also attacked Republican Vice-Presidential candidate JD Vance in an interview with The New Yorker. He called Vance “too radical.” That may be true, but under the best-case scenario for Zelensky, if the Republican ticket fails, Vance will still be a United States Senator in a narrowly held Republican Senate. Why poke the bear? The fact is that Vance might have less power to influence aid to Ukraine as Vice-President than as a Senator. It was just gratuitously stupid.

Despite pandering to the Democrats, Zelensky did not get what he wanted most from Biden—support for his “Victory Plan,” which included permission to use long-range American-provided missiles against targets in Russian territory. The Biden Administration leaked that they were unimpressed with Zelensky’s plan. While no one knows who is actually managing US foreign and security policy right now, it is clear that Zelensky’s visit with President Biden did nothing to change the government’s position on using long-range weapons.

From a policy perspective, the Administration is wrong. Allowing Ukraine to attack the air bases that launch missiles against its cities would be an essential piece of leverage in an eventual negotiation. The fear is that an over-ambitious Ukrainian general might launch a missile at the Kremlin or even Putin’s dacha, prompting a surge in Russian patriotism and the potential for a nuclear retaliation against a Ukrainian city. Yet, not being allowed to respond to the direct military threat by Russia against Ukrainian cities and infrastructure leaves Ukraine utterly vulnerable to the demoralizing effects of unanswered attacks.

Russia has been throwing around nuclear threats with impunity for two years now. NATO should respond to these threats. For instance, NATO could announce that if there is a credible threat of a Russian tactical or strategic nuclear attack on Ukraine, the alliance would impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine along with the willingness to shoot down any potentially nuclear-armed planes or missiles flying toward Ukrainian airspace. With five NATO countries bordering Ukraine, any nuclear attack and the resulting fallout would likely trigger Article V of the NATO treaty, requiring an allied response.

Russia would be at a considerable disadvantage if it triggered such a NATO response since it would change the course of its war in Ukraine. The first use of nuclear weapons in a war since WWII would demand a powerful NATO response. Why not make clear what the consequences would be for the first use of atomic weapons by deterring it with a strong and unmistakable message?

Next, Zelensky met with President Biden and Vice President Harris. Who knows at what level Biden was able to respond, but his meeting with Harris certainly made for a nice photo op for the Harris campaign. 

After meeting with the Democratic nominee for President, Zelensky had to meet with former President Trump—awkward but necessary. After the meeting, Zelensky said, “We have a common view that the war in Ukraine must be stopped. Putin cannot win. Ukraine must win.” 

Trump was not so sanguine.

Trump likely has some ideas about how he might end the war, and it would not be a surprise if he had not shared those ideas with Vance. Democrats and their allies in the media have been anxious to portray Trump as a Putin lackey, making a more nuanced look at what a deal might entail unexplored by the media.

After the failed Ukrainian offensive of 2023, there is little reason to believe Ukraine can recapture significant amounts of territory from Russia. Russia is relentlessly pushing to gain more territory in the Donetsk region. Unless the mothers of dead Russian soldiers start to become a threat to Putin’s rule, his disregard for the lives of his soldiers makes his bloody success more than likely. Ukraine is running out of soldiers. Too many of its best fighters are dead or wounded, and the country has been highly reluctant to recruit younger soldiers to take their place.

So, where does Trump start in a negotiation? First, he would have to get Ukraine to concede that it would have to give up some territory occupied by Russian invaders. That would leave Putin with some choices: he could cede back some territory, especially in exchange for territory Ukraine has seized inside the Kursk region of Russia, or accept a guarantee of Ukraine’s security by the United States, the United Kingdom, and Poland. 

Zelensky cannot simply accept a cease-fire along existing lines since this war is a consequence of the cease-fire his predecessors accepted in 2014. Putin would spend the next five to ten years reinforcing the existing lines while he rebuilds his strength. That is no peace. If Ukraine is being asked to give up territory, it must have an ironclad security agreement to prevent another invasion.

A military alliance with the West, followed by a rapid approval of membership in the European Union, would mean Putin paid a significant price for his invasion and failed in his most important goal.

The point is that Trump would have several points of leverage against Putin to secure a peace agreement. If Putin refuses, Trump could always approve the use of long-range American missiles while offering Ukraine more US aid, wait a few months, and try again.

I do not know what goes on in Donald Trump’s mind, but if he thinks he can make a deal, he is already exploring his leverage to force both sides to agree. His self-perceived relationship with Putin might be a plus in any negotiation. 

The point is that Zelensky needs a relationship with Trump, especially since Trump may win the election. He also needs a relationship with Republicans in Congress. Since no one knows who will win November’s election, a wise political leader should seek good relationships with Republicans and Democrats.

Unfortunately for Ukraine, its President stepped into the minefield of American politics and undermined the prospect of future bipartisan support for Ukraine’s freedom and sovereignty. Much repair work needs to be done, but it is doubtful it can be achieved before November 5. Zelensky’s visit turned into an unforced error that may have dire consequences for his embattled nation.