By Matt Underwood Zelenskyy’s recent comments about the lack of a meaningful response from Western allies to North Korea’s military involvement in the Ukrainian war have struck a personal chord with me. Watching as the situation continues to evolve, it feels like there is a growing disparity between the gravity of the circumstances and the lethargic nature of international reactions. For a leader at war, the expectation is simple: if one area escalates, the response should match that intensity. But, what does it say about our global priorities when allies are, as Zelenskyy put it bluntly, sitting on “zero” response?
The deployment of North Korean troops to support Russia should have raised alarm bells across the globe. Instead, it seems to have elicited caution and silence from those with the power to counterbalance this escalating threat against Ukraine. It’s not just about North Korea; it’s about the very principles of international cooperation and mutual defense that we’ve claimed to uphold. Zelenskyy is not just expressing frustration; he’s revealing a deeper issue—a lack of cohesion and commitment among countries that profess to stand with Ukraine. When Zelenskyy says, “Putin is checking the reaction of the West… and the reaction that is there today is nothing, it is zero,” it reflects the urgency of a moment not being met with urgency of action.
It’s baffling to think that a country like North Korea, infamous for its military bravado and sanctions-busting activities, could be allowed to engage in international aggression with such little pushback from other nations. The absence of a robust response risks emboldening not only Russia but also other adversaries who might be watching how the West reacts, or more specifically, fails to react. I can’t help but wonder what kind of calculated games are being played behind closed doors. With looming elections in the U.S., it seems that the immediate geopolitical landscape is being quietly held hostage to domestic political agendas. The outcome of these elections could dictate not only U.S. involvement but shape global alliances for years to come.
I share in Zelenskyy’s disbelief over China’s silence on this issue. If major global powers remain indifferent, it raises questions about their commitment to stability and what they view as acceptable behavior on the world stage. Are we collectively content to leave Ukraine, a nation fighting for its survival, to fend for itself amid such escalating tensions? The inaction becomes particularly stark when considering the vast resources flowing into Russia from its allies like Iran and North Korea. Why is it that we seem to hand out words of support instead of tangible assistance? The time for symbolic gestures has long passed; we need a show of strength that unequivocally signals to aggressors that the rules of engagement have consequences.
Furthermore, it’s disconcerting to recognize the reality that while Ukraine may have supporters, it does not have true allies willing to work together for a common victory. There is a difference between being an ally—actively working toward shared goals—and being a supporter, which often amounts to little more than verbal endorsements spattered across social media feeds. If this disparity persists, we’re left with a paradigm where promises are made but rarely delivered, highlighting a troubling pattern of analysis that suggests Ukraine is fast becoming a lost cause in the eyes of many Western governments.
I can’t shake off the sense of frustration that runs through my mind. What Zelenskyy has called out is not merely an issue for Ukraine but an issue for the entire international community. The fragility of global security feels palpable when we watch as external threats become emboldened without receiving a comprehensive and strategic response. It feels increasingly like the West is caught in a loop of indecision, waiting for the results of a U.S. election before committing to a course of action—absurdly delaying a necessary response that could translate into concrete support for Ukraine and, by extension, a deterrent against further acts of aggression.
Zelenskyy’s passionate plea encapsulates a desperation that is easy to comprehend—fighting for his nation’s sovereignty while watching others engage in wartime politics. The world has stood back and, in many ways, opted for passivity instead of proactive engagement, leaving countries like Ukraine in limbo. It raises the question: how much longer can this charade of indifference continue before we confront the consequences of allowing aggression to go unchecked? We should be responding with action, not merely words, and yet here we are—caught in a spiel of rhetoric while the world burns. It’s frustrating, it’s heartbreaking, and it is a call to arms for all who care about what it means to stand with a nation in crisis.