Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy did not have a good 2021. He was accused of using the anti-corruption platform that got him elected two years earlier to crack down on dissent, attack his opponents and consolidate power. His business affairs were exposed in the Pandora Papers, and his approval rating, having won the presidency in a 73% landslide, dipped to 30% and below.
In other words, he was well on his way to becoming another failed anti-establishment populist — at worst a cynical phoney, at best a naive lightweight, whose promises could not survive the system into which they had delivered him.
And then in February of this year, Russia brutally and illegally invaded Ukraine. It flicked a switch in Zelenskyy, almost instantly. On February 25 he posted a short video from the streets of besieged Kyiv, surrounded by unsmiling members of his leadership team, his suit substituted for olive-green khaki. His message was simple: “We are here.”
He had not fled, and he would not. He turned down evacuation offers from the US and Turkey, saying, “I need ammunition, not a ride.” He has survived several assassination attempts since.
The sight of Zelenskyy communicating to his people and the world through hurriedly shot mobile phone footage, looking haunted but unbowed, became a symbol of moral and physical courage — both his and Ukraine’s.
At the same time, the ease with the camera he’d displayed during the election campaign returned, and with it his ability to give the impression he was quickly sharing something with just you, the viewer, that gravelly baritone dropping to just above a whisper. From bunkers and offices in Ukraine, he embarked on a virtual world tour, addressing parliaments the world over, telling Ukraine’s story, raising support. One such address to the European Parliament reduced his translator to tears.
The past few years have done nothing much for the idea of “entertainers” as world leaders. Boris Johnson, Donald Trump and Scott Morrison, to different extents and in different ways, found their way to power via their ability to play to the crowd, and were ultimately humiliated by their failure to do much else. As the first truly online wartime leader, Zelenskyy has inverted that prospect.
The comedian and political neophyte found depth and gravitas through just those traits — his power has been derived from an understanding of political theatre, the ability to craft a story that will cut through. Fundamentally, Zelenkskyy’s triumph in 2022 has been his ability to make himself understood, both to and on behalf of the people he is leading.
And here’s the thing — what appeared to be a heroic, ultimately tragic and doomed stand against an aggressor actually ended up working. As professor Ben Saul told Crikey in a different context: “Russia’s annexation and occupation of Ukraine was met with textbook enforcement of international law — Western sanctions, weapons, intelligence-sharing, war crimes investigations, humanitarian aid, and a welcome mat for refugees.”
The invasion — which many Ukrainians view as merely the most explicit recent move in a war that has been ongoing since 2014 — is not over, but it has been a military humiliation and geopolitical disaster for Russia.
Zelenskyy’s story could have ended up a sour joke, a taunting reminder to never get your hopes up. Instead, thanks to the awful intervention of brute history, he became that rarest of things, in politics and in life: someone able to return to the hopes he once inspired and fashion them into something greater still.
Read about this award’s esteemed counterpart: the 2022 Crikey Arsehat of the Year.
Magnificent.
End of.
An amazing guy but I think every time comedian is mentioned in these bios that law degree should be added. He is clever, knows how systems work and how to structure and target communication. Vital skills in building a coalition.
I like Zelensky’s style, but question how unlimited billions of dollars of wealth transfer from US taxpayers to Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and McDonnel Douglas is a symbol of hope.
One admires your empathy for US taxpayers and their indirect financial support for defence industries; GOP argument?
However, what has that got to do with Russia invading Ukraine while ignoring tangible and intangible military and civil support from the EU, EEA & NATO nations in Europe, especially bordering Russia?
Zelensky is merely the front man for a conventional war between those allies and the Russians.
War is bad, hence my lack of enthusiasm.
What’s worse, this stems back to WWII, when 27 million Russians gave their lives to defeat Hitler.
Why did Russia give so much?
They thought they had a deal for afterwards with the Americans.
But no. Americans reneg on every treaty and stop at nothing to achieve a unipolar American world economic empire.
This is just that.
Interesting opinions in a far away place… but not grounded analysis e.g. avoiding input from Central Eastern European expertise and assume the Ukraine was/is some ethnically pure nation? Who likes war, especially when WWII has been used by Putin to induce patriotism and Russian victimhood to justify his invasion(s).
This requires one to ignore key points e.g. Molotov-Rippentrop Pact between Stalin’s USSR & Hitler’s Germany to partition (& invade) Poland in 1939, then Germany invaded USSR.
Russia is not the USSR, former Republics being independent nation states while in the Russian Federation we observe the pecking order of Russians in the west at the top vs. Russian subjects or nationals of other ethnicity and regions doing the fighting for Russia or Putin.
While we see far right in the US via media inc. Tucker Carlson describing Zelensky as a ‘N**i’ and a ‘thug’, Russian far right has been developing ties with Europeans and US of the same ilk over decades whether funding of Le Pen or just sharing ideas (Hungarian National Bank had helped with funding of Le Pen too).
This has been researched of late in ‘Russia and the Western Far Right – Tango Noir’ 2017 By Anton Shekhovtsov and ‘The Beast Reawakens: Fascism’s Resurgence from Hitler’s Spymasters to Today’s Neo-Nazi Groups & Right-wing Extremists’ 1997 Martin Lee; the latter highlights direct links developed between Russian far right, Europe inc. Germany and the US.
One would add, there is also the EU and constituent nations doing much to support Ukraine, meanwhile PRC and India maybe mute on Russia’s invasion, one assumes they will only offer tepid support, if at all.
Finally, Putin has managed to succeed in reinforcing NATO, Finland and Sweden joining, then on his western and southern flanks he has two large and well equipped NATO armies and air forces in Poland and Turkey, not to forget sanctions; well done by Putin, but not so good for the future of Russia (those of working age who have not managed to leg it out yet)?
Like many with antipathy towards the USA, shared by many inc. moi, is singularly obsessed over and used to justify faux anti-imperialism, but ignore why e.g. liberal democracies prefer NATO and the EU over Russia, such as new NATO members Sweden and Finland.
Governments support money and military might. No question which side they’ll choose…
Frank, a lot of Ukrainians also fought in Stalin’s army. It just isn’t that simple.
I doubt their descendents in today’s Ukrainian army quite have your view. They are simply fighting too hard to be puppets of a comedian and some mystical organised US thing. But perhaps they don’t know what is good for them and what the correct thought should be.
The USSR had huge losses significantly because they didn’t care about their troops lives ,(and perhaps Stalin had purged his officers capable of independent thought), much as it seems is the case now.
Seems the Baltic states in general also might not quite share your views, but what would they know?
If I were in Ukraine I’d be fighting for my independence. There’s no question about that.
Russian military aggression is ruthless. I wouldn’t want to be on the wrong side of it.
What I’m saying above is that the US has provoked Russia and reneged on it’s undertakings.
The US method for regime change is different to Putin’s.
US is more efficient, concealed, and shielded from criticism.
US, via CIA, funds operatives in foreign nations to do its work for it. These operatives are every bit as ruthless and brutal as the descriptions you have heard of Putin’s forces.
Did you know more than 100,000 innocent civilians were slaughtered in East Timor prior to the liberation?
Did you know the Indonesian troops that committed atrocities were funded by and approved by US covert operations authorised by President Ford?
If not, and if you just figure Ukraine is the brutal whim of a Russian dictator, then it’s no wonder we don’t see things the same way.
Glad to hear you would fight if you were Ukrainian.
None of what you say about US agency interference is a surprise to me, and I am sure we can both quote more examples.
I would for one thing like to see Australian commitment to Iraq II properly investigated.
Where we may differ is that I don’t see the US as an organised state, it is much more chaotic with sometimes positive and sometimes negative forces prevailing.
To my mind money runs the planet in general and will cook future generations future.
Where I really differ with you is on the final focus on the US and not also the Russian initiation of this war. Stalin was not an honorable man, and I don’t believe Putin is either – a good leader with a good heart would not have invaded Ukraine.
I have been to both Russia and the US and the brutality and danger in both societies is obvious. Having said that the sense of targetted and casual intimidation that I felt in Russia was something else. The bitterness in the older generation in some Baltic states was also strong.
As a outback kid in the 60s I was not that far off conscription for Vietnam, and unlike most of my city peers I knew exactly what a .303 did. I also have plenty of dead AIF ancestors. So yes people who are safe (including those who sit at the head of very long tables) start wars and ordinary people pay the price.
So I doubt you would find me really wet behind the ears if we ever conversed.
I just think you need to also call the Russian behaviour a bit more evenly, but that’s my view.
I’m in favour of neutrality, Bill.
Sounds like you are too. But perhaps we should clarify — what is “neutrality”?
It’s a word we rarely hear in the context of serious foreign policy debate, except in the joke concept of Switzerland.
Neutrality – the right to remain unaligned – is enschrined in the UN charter, which was signed by Australia and most other countries in 1945.
But there are no non-aligned governments. At least, none in countries that possess significant mineral resources.
Why doesn’t the UN promote and enable the doctrine of neutrality?
The last secretary general to do so actively, Dag Hammarskjold, was assassinated before he could travel with his team to _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ to establish _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
Can you fill in the blanks?
Not many people can.
Hi Frank,
I can’t answer your question, perhaps you should post the background.
Yes, I fully agree with you on neutrality (and other points you raised).
I have a very bleak view of human nature and our future, so I don’t know what the answers are.
Thanks for your considered responses, I listened.
I must get on the road, hope you have a healthy and happy 2023.
Thank you for listening and sharing your considered thoughts, Bill. Best wishes for 2023 and beyond.
Greg Poulgrain
JFK vs. Allen Dulles: Battleground Indonesia
2020 by Skyhorse
ISBN 9781510744790 (ISBN10: 1510744797)
David Talbot
The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government
2015 by Harper
ISBN 9780062276162 (ISBN10: 0062276166)
Calling the Russian behaviour (as Bill T suggests) is one thing; unforgivable – will that suffice?
But another thing is examining why this war started and whether it could have been avoided. Another thing is whether Putin’s objective now is the same as it was in February.
It seems to me that of all the options which could have been negotiated prior to February, what is happening is by far the worst possible result for Ukraine, and perhaps for Russia too.
Who benefits? Think about that. Whatever the end result, it won’t be Ukraine or the people of Ukraine.
I hear what you’re saying, and let’s not pretend the US is always on the right side of history.
However, if you were Ukrainian, why should US past behaviour be used to criticise their right and desire to free their country?
I would love to see Ukraine sovereign and free.
Do you think the US military industrial complex is spending $100b+ to achieve that outcome, or might there be some strings attached in the future?
The full story is complex, and it’s difficult to fathom without reading the books above.
But I’ve just discovered a wonderful 2021 review of Poulgrain’s book by Edward Curtin that does an excellent job of summarizing the story in a few thousand words.
It’s a summary of how US foreign policy grabbed the old empires from the defeated allied powers of WWII to create our modern world.
Search for
edward curtin jfk dulles
So if Australia was invaded by China next year, would you still make these purist arguments, or try to access the weapons from the companies you mention?
I’d prefer Australia to be sovereign and Free, Robert.
And did you know that China hasn’t invaded any country for the last 200 years?
Can you say the same thing about America, Britain, or Australia?
Nevertheless, your question is a good one. You are asking me what I would do if I were being invaded by a foreign aggressor. Would I accept help from a large superpower?
Well, I would rather have help than be defeated by a foreign power. So, you win the argument, thanks to your construction of a hypothetical large invader and a large white knight.
But that’s not what the United Nations Charter was written to allow. The charter guaranteed all nations the right to independence.
Imagine a world in which all non super-power countries were allowed to take control of their own land and resources. They could charge fair market prices for commodities, instead of doing what Australia does – giving gas and minerals away to foreign multinationals for almost no profit to the citizens of Australia.
The reason Australia can’t do that, is because behind the scenes, it is answerable to foreign interests. Australia can’t rely on US defense forces unless it grants US corporations – mining, banks, telecommunications, tech companies, arms manufacturers, aircraft and car manufacturers, the terms demanded by the US State Department.
The reason no strong, independent, democratic governments emerged in South America and Africa since WWII is because every time a green shoot appeared, the CIA extinguished it.
When Arbenz was elected president of Guatamala, he legislated land reform to try to reclaim the 85% of Guatamalan farmland which was being left fallow by the monopoly banana producer to stifle competition. That company, the United Fruit Company of Boston, was offered fair compensation equivalent to the full value of the land it had been declaring on its tax returns.
Instead of obeying the law of the independent government of Guatamala, the United Fruit Company called its former lawyer, Allen Dulles, who by then was director of Central Intelligence for Eisenhower, and requested a coup. Arbenz was swiftly defeated, hundreds of thousands were killed, and Guatamalans lived under a brutal dictatorship for the next two decades.
A similar thing happend in Iran when Mossadeque was elected president and tried to regain control over that countries oil reserves.
In Indonesia, more than a million poor rice farmers were killed when the CIA staged a coup to overthrow the democractically elected president, Sukarno in 1965. Their chosen general, Suharto, then ruled Indonesia for the next three decades, earning a personal fortune of $18 billion, and enrichening Rockefeller family interests to the tune of $240 billion.
The full story is complex, and it’s difficult to fathom without reading books.
But I’ve just discovered a wonderful 2021 review of Poulgrain’s book by Edward Curtin that does an excellent job of summarizing the story in a few thousand words.
It’s a summary of how US foreign policy grabbed the old empires from the defeated allied powers of WWII to create our modern world.
Search for
edward curtin jfk dulles
and read the review of Greg Poulgrain’s book.
If you just read the review, you’ll start to get some hint of an idea about the real reason why Australia doesn’t charge foreign companies anything at all for the $26 billion dollars of gas they extract from this country every year.
Again, no argument with the outcome, but can we see the vote tally?
Sure would be nice if it didn’t take an invasion to inspire the kind of courage we require from our leaders.
Hang on a sec, we were invaded, by the neoliberal body snatchers.