By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a recent Fox News interview, Ukrainian President Zelensky asserted that the war’s conclusion hinges more on the United States than Russia, citing President Putin’s relative weakness. He expressed hope that President-elect Trump’s potential influence, particularly regarding energy prices, could pressure Putin to end hostilities. However, Zelensky warned that reduced U.S. aid under a Trump administration risks Ukraine losing the war, despite its continued resistance. Trump’s campaign promises to negotiate a swift end to the conflict have introduced significant uncertainty into the situation.
Read the original article here
Zelensky’s assertion that Putin is weaker than the United States hinges on the crucial role he believes the US president plays in resolving the war in Ukraine. He emphasizes the importance of direct negotiations, suggesting a diplomatic solution is preferable to continued conflict. This approach seems strategically aimed at appealing to the ego of a specific US leader, hoping to leverage personal ambition to achieve a favorable outcome.
The success of this strategy, however, depends heavily on the personality and motivations of the US president. There are concerns about a potential lack of a united Western front due to internal political divisions within the US. The possibility of a leader prioritizing self-interest over broader geopolitical concerns introduces significant uncertainty into the equation. This internal division is perceived as having inadvertently empowered a faction that prioritizes national interests above collective action against Russia.
The argument that “everyone is weaker than the US” is presented as a general truth, but this overlooks the complexities of the current geopolitical landscape. While the US possesses significant military and economic power, the presence of a potential ally of Russia in a position of power within the US introduces a critical vulnerability. This vulnerability could potentially neutralize the US’s inherent strength, especially concerning the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
The analogy of two men standing in a tank of gasoline, each holding matches, aptly illustrates the volatile nature of the situation. The number of matches represents the relative power, but the inherent danger of the scenario makes it a high-stakes game where even a slight shift in power could lead to devastating consequences. The limited timeframe, highlighted by the mention of a deadline in February, underscores the urgency of the situation and the potential for a dramatic shift in the balance of power thereafter.
The idea of a personal confrontation between Putin and Zelensky is presented humorously, but it also highlights the deeply personal and potentially unpredictable nature of the conflict. The focus on the ego of the US president suggests a belief that playing to this ego could be a key strategy in influencing the outcome. However, simply stroking egos might not be sufficient; a more comprehensive approach may be necessary.
The potential for nuclear escalation looms large, rendering the question of who is “mightier” essentially irrelevant. The outcome of nuclear conflict would be devastating for all parties involved, emphasizing the need for a peaceful resolution. The concerns about a potential shift in US policy under a specific leader highlight the fragile nature of international alliances and the potential for a sudden reversal of support for Ukraine. This potential reversal is viewed with considerable anxiety.
The strategy of appealing to the US president’s ego is seen as a necessary gamble given the circumstances. However, there are doubts about its effectiveness, given the unpredictability of the individual involved and the potential influence of external pressures. The belief that this leader has existing obligations to Putin casts further uncertainty on the feasibility of any plan relying on their cooperation.
Despite the significant challenges, Zelensky’s actions are interpreted as a pragmatic attempt to navigate a complex and high-stakes situation. The lack of a unified Western front and the potential for a dramatic shift in US policy creates a sense of urgency and makes Zelensky’s strategic maneuvering all the more crucial. His approach might appear to be placing all his eggs in one basket, but in the absence of other viable options, this strategy might be a necessary calculation given the current circumstances. Ultimately, the situation remains perilous, with the fate of Ukraine hanging precariously in the balance.