Why Zelensky's visit to Washington was a failure
Why Zelensky's visit to Washington was a failure
Ukraine's president was over the top and ignored realities as he requested more funds and technology for an increasingly futile effort.
Summary: Eager to make the case for continued funds for Ukraine’s resistance against Russian invasion, Volodymyr Zelensky was over the top during his U.S. visit with little to show for previous efforts. The time has come for a peace agreement.
Failure is the singular word that comes to mind to describe Volodymyr Zelensky's week-long visit to the United States, where he entreated an increasingly weary and skeptical nation to continue providing aid to Ukraine's resistance against Russian invasion.
Even before setting foot in on our shores, Zelensky had a much tougher sell than his visit in December when he was able to address a joint session of Congress. Denied the same opportunity by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Zelensky doesn't have the same high-profile stage to communicate with the American public. But even if he did, the overwhelming support and media reception he previously enjoyed would likely be absent. Several months after his previous visit, he has little to show in terms of ejecting a deeply entrenched Russian military from his sovereign territory.
It's easier to imagine now at such an address to Congress less dignified House members (you know the ones I mean) giving boos and howls to express solidarity with not just the conservative base, but the growing majority of the American public opposed to continued to contributions to Ukraine. In reflection of the changing views, a CNN poll by SSRS last month found 55 percent of the American people oppose additional funding for Ukraine, while 51 percent say the United States has done enough. Although support for more aid remains strong among liberal Democrats, the shift is a remarkable change from the early days when support for Ukraine was steadfast among the American people.
Zelensky didn't leave Washington with an impression exactly conducive to reversing that trend and winning back support. At times, he was overly apocalyptic, telling the United Nations the invasion of Ukraine is part of a global struggle and "unity" is needed to contain Russia. Zelenskyy compared the Russian invasion to natural disasters instigated by climate change and said the invasion began with "one unnatural disaster" in Moscow.
One old adage I find particularly true, known as Godwin's law, says as political discourse continues, the probability of comparison involving Adolf Hitler approaches 1, meaning such an outcome is escapable. Zelensky went there in an interview with "60 Minutes," saying Russia "raised a second Hitler" with Putin and Ukraine is fighting to prevent World War III.
Zelensky has a tendency to come off as overly demanding as opposed to grateful to the contributions the world has made to Ukraine, as well as the sacrifices if the skyrocketing energy costs in Europe are any indication. The United States alone has provided $75 billion in support to Ukraine, with other countries in Europe contributing significant portions of their GDP. But in an interview with the Economist, Zelensky made a strange threat, saying Ukrainians are "very grateful" for the aid but it will not be a "good story" for Europe if it "pushes these people in the corner."
All of this might be justifiable if it made more sense and Zelensky had a clear path forward, but that doesn't seem like it's in the cards. A vaunted counteroffensive of Ukrainian troops trained by U.S. forces was an absolute failure after these troops disregarded guidance to cut off Russian supply chains. The New York Times reported the refusal to follow the plan was the result of Ukrainians being adverse to casualties, suggesting Western allies are pressuring conscripted troops to undertake an effort they know is too dangerous after an estimated 500,000 are now wounded or killed. Although Russian military forces make up the lion's share with 300,000 either dead or wounded, around 190,000 of those casualties belong to Ukraine.
If all of that was an attempt to defend democracy, Zelenskyy has made the perception much more complicated by suspending elections in Ukraine and cutting out free speech by silencing the media by making any possible dissent. The effort now seems like more of an effort to protect Zelenskyy (who admittedly will forever be danger if the plane crash that killed Russian dissenter Yevgeny Prigozhin is any indication) as opposed to the Ukrainian people, who are now unable to voice any objections to Zelenskyy at the ballot box.
The conflict now requires guidance for a peace agreement as opposed to continued funding for war instead the vain hopes of expelling Russia, which controls large swaths of Russian-speaking portions of Ukraine and the Black Sea. Nineteen months after the invasion, Western allies made a respectable move to punish Russia for an unjustifiable incursion into a neighboring country, but the time has come for realism.
It's no wonder the Biden administration, currently seeking an additional $25 billion for the Ukrainian effort, denied Zelenskyy's request for use of the Army Tactical Missile System, known as ATACMS. The system can strike targets 190 miles away with a warhead containing about 375 pounds of explosives, according to The New York Times. In a sign of his entitlement, Zelensky recently a deal for Ukraine to acquire the system was on the "finish line." Zelensky will have to settle for an $325 million Biden announced from the existing funds to provide other air-defense capabilities.
But my prediction is funding will continue to flow to Ukraine despite Zelenskyy's lackluster visit. The solution out of the current impasse in Congress to avert a government shutdown will likely be a bipartisan deal that provides more funds for Ukraine to appease Democrats in the Senate and more border security funding to appease Republicans in the House. It might be a while before we get to that because the hard-liners in the House won't even allow a vote on a defense appropriations bill, but such a deal as outlined by Problem Solvers Caucus seems to be the likely outcome.
So the institutional failure, as the Weekly Dystopia seeks to point out as one its core missions, is inability of Congress to function at the basic level of continuing to fund the U.S. government will likely result in a forever war in Ukraine despite opposition from a majority of the American public and indications those efforts will be futile. That will make Zelenskyy happy, but at a significant cost to the American people who may soon have to make tough decisions about allocations of resources for our own country.
Editor’s Note: Subscribers of the Weekly Dystopia may be surprised to see this dispatch in our email boxes after a long hiatus. I’ve been working through economic difficulties preventing me from writing and that is current still the case. I’m hoping to update this newsletter periodically as I make my way to stability.