Is Zelensky's Leadership the Real Cause of Ukraine's War?

UPDATED: Aug 19, 2025 00:32 IST

Washington has once again become the crossroads of war and peace. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy arrived in the American capital, accompanied by Europe’s most powerful leaders. Their message is one of unity, their goal clear: to prevent another humiliation like the one that unfolded in February, when Donald Trump openly challenged Ukraine’s cause in the Oval Office.

Yet this visit carries a darker question beneath the diplomacy and speeches: was this war avoidable? Did Ukraine, under Zelenskyy, take steps that made conflict inevitable?

Trump Shifts: From Ceasefire to Permanent Settlement

After his Alaska meeting with Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump has pivoted sharply. No longer advocating a ceasefire, he now speaks of a permanent settlement that would see Moscow annex the Donbas in full. Behind closed doors, according to officials, Trump has pressed Zelenskyy to consider Putin’s demands-a proposition the Ukrainian leader has rejected. But the fact that the U.S. president is echoing Moscow’s red lines cannot be ignored in Kyiv.

For Zelenskyy and his allies, the stakes are immediate. Donetsk and Luhansk, long contested and long fought over, are now openly being demanded as the price for peace. Europe stands behind Ukraine, but Washington’s position has shifted dramatically, leaving Zelenskyy in a precarious position.

Ukraine’s NATO Gamble

The question of responsibility extends deeper. For decades, Russia made it clear that NATO expansion into Ukraine would be unacceptable. Leaders from Boris Yeltsin to Vladimir Putin repeatedly warned that Ukrainian membership was a red line-a message neither subtle nor hidden.

Yet Zelenskyy, and Ukraine more broadly, continued to push for NATO membership, promising his people a future inside the alliance despite the absence of any formal guarantee. NATO leaders offered “aspirations,” “partnerships,” and “eventual goals,” but no Article 5 security guarantee, no binding timetable, no treaty. Zelenskyy made this a central tenet of his presidency, signalling to Russia a direct confrontation.

Some Ukrainian voices are now asking whether Zelenskyy overplayed his hand. The war, they argue, is not merely Moscow’s aggression but also Kyiv’s miscalculation-a decision to promise more than his supposed allies were willing to deliver.

A History of Humiliation and Distrust

Zelenskyy’s political calculations have repeatedly collided with reality. In February 2025, his White House meeting ended in public humiliation, with Trump and Vice President JD Vance accusing him of dragging the United States toward “World War Three.” Trump also torpedoed an energy deal Ukraine had been negotiating, leaving Zelenskyy politically weakened and deeply suspicious of Washington.

History has often shown that smaller nations are treated as bargaining chips in great-power politics. In 2014, a leaked phone call revealed U.S. officials dictating Ukraine’s internal politics, dismissing European input with an infamous expletive. Russia exploited the episode to portray Ukraine as a puppet of the West. Today, Zelenskyy faces a similar dynamic: the struggle for agency in a game dominated by more powerful actors.

The Shadow of Spheres of Influence

Underlying the summit is the enduring doctrine of spheres of influence. Putin has long demanded a buffer zone between Russia and NATO-a stance reminiscent of the Monroe Doctrine. Alarmingly for European leaders, Trump’s rhetoric increasingly echoes Moscow’s red lines, framing Ukraine’s NATO aspirations as negotiable. The danger is clear: if Washington endorses a Russian sphere, Ukraine’s sovereignty could be subordinated to Moscow’s security priorities, and Europe’s principle that small nations have the right to choose their alliances would be shattered.

Europe’s Credibility at Stake

Zelenskyy’s European allies are not merely supporting Ukraine’s survival; they are defending their own credibility. Years of speeches on the sanctity of borders and sovereignty are on the line. For leaders like Macron, Merz, and Starmer, being mere spectators while Trump and Putin discuss Ukraine’s future would be politically and morally devastating.

Responsibility and Consequences

At the heart of this confrontation lies a difficult truth: Ukraine’s leadership bears a degree of responsibility for the conflict. Zelenskyy’s decision to promise NATO membership without guarantees provoked Moscow, setting the stage for the war that followed. While Russian aggression cannot be denied, Kyiv’s actions-its promises, its strategic gambles, its miscalculations-played a central role in bringing catastrophe to its own doorstep.

The Washington summit is thus not merely about weapons or aid. It is about agency, about the right of Ukraine to determine its own future without being forced into a corner by the great powers. And as Zelenskyy faces Trump and Putin, with Europe watching closely, the lesson is stark: leadership choices carry consequences-sometimes devastating ones.

- Ends