Volodymyr Zelensky is going to fare well in the history books

[Debater Slayer]

On a related note, while Zelenskyy's valiant stand against the Russian invasion is surely on the right side of history, his overall career isn't consistently on the same level of admirability:

Nevertheless, I didn’t listen to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s speech to the members of the Knesset Sunday night. After all, what’s the connection between the Ukrainian people’s suffering and the leaders of a country that has already been maintaining an accursed occupation for 57 years, riding roughshod over a neighboring people’s lives?

How is it, Zelenskyy, that you – a leader representing a heroic people fighting for its freedom and dignity, and even for its life – are appealing to Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, who is the face of the ugly occupation? How is it that you are appealing to the 120 members of our Knesset when more than 100 of them either support the occupation or haven’t uttered a peep against its injustices and its continuation?

Opinion | Why I Didn’t Listen to Zelenskyy’s Speech to Israel

The assertion that Zelenskyy will not also be remembered for deeply problematic statements and positions is decidedly one-dimensional and, in some cases, Western-centric. To millions of Arabs and supporters of the human rights of Palestinians, his stances on certain issues are far from heroic or ethical.

 

[exchemist]

Zelenskyy is neither a war criminal nor a violent colonialist, so it seems to me that he's much better than Churchill.

Grind your axe somewhere else, please.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Grind your axe somewhere else, please.

I'm not sure how pointing out historical facts is grinding an axe. In these discussions, I often prefer to respond to what I see as problematic glorification of certain historical figures, since I think that doesn't sufficiently take into account their own crimes against humanity. Churchill's record in that regard is well-documented; it seems to me that anyone against Russia's invasion of Ukraine shouldn't praise him when his reign saw a considerable amount of colonialism and aggression on sovereign nations.

 

[exchemist]

I'm not sure how pointing out historical facts is grinding an axe. In these discussions, I often prefer to respond to what I see as problematic glorification of certain historical figures, since I think that doesn't sufficiently take into account their own crimes against humanity. Churchill's record in that regard is well-documented; it seems to me that anyone against Russia's invasion of Ukraine shouldn't praise him when his reign saw a considerable amount of colonialism and aggression on sovereign nations.

This thread is about the wartime leadership of Zelensky, not colonialism.

 

[Debater Slayer]

This thread is about the wartime leadership of Zelensky, not colonialism.

Which branched into the comparison to Churchill in your post, hence my (brief) response to that.

We agree on the quality of Zelenskyy's wartime leadership.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It also depends on who the winners are. In the U.S., former Confederates were still free to write and publish their own versions of history. Those who were pro-Union probably had their own reasons for giving it a nod and a wink.

Even during the war the CSA was fighting for slavery. This is why I mention Alexander Stephens, a very ugly loser of history, because he said this before his treasonous "nation" lost.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Which branched into the comparison to Churchill in your post, hence my (brief) response to that.

We agree on the quality of Zelenskyy's wartime leadership.

We do definitely have many examples of people who were right for war but lacking for good character in other areas to draw upon for Zolensky.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, I'm glad Putin didn't get the easy victory that was anticipated for him, but lets not forget Zelensky wasn't thought of that highly before this war. According to some sources he didn't even bother warning his people of this pending invasion.

??

Didn't the whole world pretty much know of the troop build-up at the borders and the impending invasion?

 

[Mock Turtle]

??

Didn't the whole world pretty much know of the troop build-up at the borders and the impending invasion?

Putin, being an honourable man , did say for weeks that he would never invade - and thus destroying his credibility for all time when he did.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Yes, but the "fat lady" hasn't sung yet.

I don't believe Putin is likely to give up because it will make him look weak, and fascists don't tolerate themselves looking weak for "health" reasons. He's already hitting power plants, and we should remember that winter isn't that far away and what that combination could entail.

IOW, I'm afraid there's lot more to come, and what could happen could be much worse than what we've already seen. I can't see him compromising at this point as that would be political suicide for him.

Maybe Putin will 'fall down the stairs' or from a patio like some of his former allies.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

??

Didn't the whole world pretty much know of the troop build-up at the borders and the impending invasion?

There's a difference between speculation he's going to do it and him getting ready to actually do.