By Ahmad Shuaibu Isa
The painful reality of a leader’s treachery stems from the detrimental outcomes of hubris and the corrupting nature of authority.
Once a leader, consumed by ego,
He forsook his allies and allied with the foe.
Tricked by enticing murmurs, deceptive and sly,
Ultimately, they engulfed him, leaving naught but goodbye.
Now just an empty vessel, his influence reduced to mere ashes.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy has become an essential player in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, deeply influenced by the strategic motivations of powerful nations like the United States and NATO. Analyzing from a realist perspective, Zelenskyy’s governance aligns with Western interests, serving as a shield against Russia’s encroachment in Eastern Europe. Yet, NATO’s assistance appears less about ensuring Ukraine’s autonomy and more about diminishing Russia’s power, casting Ukraine as a mere pawn in a larger geopolitical chess game.
From a liberal viewpoint, NATO’s support for Zelenskyy is portrayed as a commitment to preserving democracy and advancing human rights. Nonetheless, the heavy dependence on Western military resources reveals a disparity where Ukraine’s independence is compromised by the geopolitical ambitions of its allies. This conflict between the aspiration for freedom and the harsh truths of global politics jeopardizes Ukraine’s sovereignty in favor of larger strategic objectives.
Moreover, constructivism interprets Zelenskyy’s position as substantially influenced by Western narratives of governance and resilience. His portrayal as a champion of liberty, standing against Russian autocracy, resonates with universal ideals of freedom. However, his actions increasingly reflect the directives of the U.S. and NATO, limiting his capacity to guide Ukraine’s destiny without external intervention.
Despite his critical role in the ongoing conflict, Zelenskyy does not operate independently; his leadership remains intricately linked to the greater struggle for global power. His decisions are routinely swayed by the interests of NATO and the United States, tying Ukraine’s future to the geopolitical strategies of its Western partners.
The varying reactions of the international community to the Ukraine-Russia conflict and the Israeli-Palestinian situation underscore the selective nature of global politics. From a realist lens, U.S. and NATO support for Ukraine serves primarily as a tactical maneuver against Russian dominance. On the contrary, America’s steadfast backing of Israel—despite its contentious actions in Palestine—highlights the complex web of alliances that often overshadow humanitarian issues. Israel’s critical geopolitical role in the Middle East, especially in relation to Iran, guarantees ongoing support regardless of the human rights issues in Palestine.
In contrast, a liberal framework would suggest that the defense of democracy and human rights ought to steer foreign policy decisions. While Zelenskyy is heralded as a heroic figure in the West, analogous humanitarian issues faced by Palestinians often receive scant attention. This inconsistency reveals a selective adherence to ethical principles, wherein strategic interests take precedence over authentic commitments to human rights.
From a constructivist perspective, international reactions are influenced by identity and prevailing narratives. Zelenskyy’s characterization as a champion of democracy aligns him with Western ideologies of resistance against oppression, while the Israeli-Palestinian conflict tends to be presented as a territorial issue. Israel’s maneuvers are frequently defended through its claim to self-defense, relegating Palestinian rights to the background. This disparity in narrative indicates how geopolitical affiliations can determine which conflicts gain international focus and intervention.
The recent dialogue among President Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and President Zelenskyy in the Oval Office signifies a crucial juncture in the evolving landscape of global power. This interaction illustrates the deepening geopolitical divides and signals pivotal transformations in power relations, particularly concerning energy security, global polarity, and the political economy.
The persistent conflict between Ukraine and Russia has significantly influenced global energy markets, especially given Russia’s major role as a key supplier of natural gas and oil to Europe. Trump’s comments about potentially reducing U.S. support for Ukraine could inadvertently force Europe to increase its dependency on Russian energy, thereby strengthening Russia’s geopolitical standing.
At the same time, the global transition to renewable energy and essential minerals like lithium and cobalt has heightened competition, with China strategically positioning itself as a leading player. By investing in mining operations across Africa, Latin America, and Asia, China aims to secure its footing in the global energy arena.
As the U.S. leans towards isolationism, this could herald the decline of the unipolar world order. A power void may emerge, allowing Russia, China, and regional powerhouses such as India and Turkey to assert influence. This transformation could lead to a more multipolar global landscape where power dynamics are distributed among several key nations.
The European Union may need to reassess its political and economic strategies, possibly strengthening connections with China and Russia. Developing economies in the Global South might also sidestep the conventional Western-centered trade frameworks, fostering unique partnerships. As competition for resources and technology escalates, control over critical assets by China and Russia will position them as vital players in the future global economy.
In conclusion, global reactions to conflicts often reveal double standards, where power dynamics and alliances overshadow consistent ethical principles. The celebration of Zelenskyy as a symbol of democratic valor sharply contrasts with the disregard for Palestinian suffering, exposing the hypocrisy embedded within global diplomatic practices. This selective application of moral values underscores how geopolitical motives frequently dictate international actions, rather than a genuine dedication to universal standards of justice and fairness.
Ahmad Shuaibu Isa