COLUMN: Zelensky Faces Western Hesitation: The Price of Leadership in Wartime

An Unprecedented Virtual Address

Eight days after his address at Westminster, Zelensky addressed the U.S. Congress via videoconference on March 16, 2022. It was an unprecedented event: a head of state at war addressing both chambers of the world’s most powerful legislature from a capital city under bombardment. The speech was simultaneously translated. Senators and representatives listened in silence.

Zelensky makes a direct appeal to President Joe Biden and lawmakers from both parties. He calls for a no-fly zone, massive sanctions against Russia, and unprecedented military aid. His remarks are well-structured, precise, and devoid of gratuitous pathos. He does not beg—he demands.

Zelensky’s Specific Demands

The Ukrainian president requests S-300 air defense systems, fighter jets, armored vehicles, and a total embargo on Russian oil and gas imports. Each request is phrased with the precision of a military commander who knows exactly what he needs. Congress gives him a standing ovation, but deliveries will take months—or even years for certain types of weaponry.

Applause doesn’t fire any shells. Speeches don’t push back any front lines.

Ten O’Clock in Washington

On December 21, 2022, Zelensky made his first visit to the United States since the start of the war. A ten-hour trip, under the threat of a missile attack en route, to address Congress in person. He is received by Joe Biden at the White House before heading to the Capitol. The Ukrainian president wears his usual military fatigues, a symbol of a nation at war.

This visit is an act of both physical and political bravery. Zelensky leaves his war-torn country to plead with the world’s leading power to maintain its support. The message is clear: if the Ukrainian president is taking this risk, it is because the situation is absolutely urgent.

The exchange of flags, a gesture that transcends diplomacy

Before Congress, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi presents Zelensky with an American flag that had been flown over the Capitol that day. In return, Zelensky presented a Ukrainian flag signed by soldiers on the front lines in Bakhmut. The two flags met beneath the Capitol dome, in one of the most powerful images of this conflict.

This gesture is not merely symbolic. Zelensky brings the reality of the battlefield into Western legislative chambers. American lawmakers hold in their hands a piece of fabric bearing the signatures of men and women who are fighting and dying for the values the United States claims to defend.

And yet, a few months later, that same Congress would block aid for six months.

Ten Points for a Restored World Order

In November 2022, Zelensky presented his ten-point peace plan to the G20 in Bali. This plan covers nuclear security, food security, the return of prisoners of war, the withdrawal of Russian troops, the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, environmental protection, the prevention of escalation, the release of deportees, energy security, and international justice.

The Peace Formula is not merely a diplomatic document. It is a comprehensive framework for ending the war on fair terms. Zelensky brings it to every summit, every assembly, and every bilateral meeting. In September 2024, he presents it once again to the United Nations General Assembly, demanding “real and honest guarantees” of peace.

Nuclear Safety as a Top Priority

The first point of the Peace Formula concerns nuclear safety. Zelensky knows that the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, occupied by Russian forces since March 2022, is a threat to all of Europe. Addressing the UN General Assembly, he reiterates that nuclear safety is non-negotiable. The United Nations applauded, but the International Atomic Energy Agency has still not managed to demilitarize the site.

A peace plan has never stopped a single missile. But its absence gives an excuse to those who do not want to act.

The Lack of a Timeline for Membership

The NATO summit in Vilnius in July 2023 was supposed to be a defining moment for Ukraine. Zelenskyy had hoped for a concrete timeline for the country’s accession to the alliance. He got nothing. The final declaration mentions an “irreversible path” toward membership, but without a date, without clear conditions, and without a formal invitation. For Kyiv, this is a bitter disappointment.

The think tank Chatham House analyzes the outcome as follows: the summit “did not convincingly advance the path to membership.” The Atlantic Council describes Ukraine as “disappointed but not discouraged.” Diplomatic doublespeak does little to conceal the fact that several alliance members—primarily the United States and Germany—refuse to open the door until the conflict ends.

Zelensky’s Strong Reaction

Zelensky reacted strongly on social media, calling the lack of a timeline “absurd.” It’s a harsh word, unusual in diplomacy, but one that reflects the frustration of a president who is sending his citizens to die for NATO’s values without receiving any guarantees in return. His reaction caused a stir in the corridors of the summit, but it was sincere.

The irony is cruel. Ukraine was denied a Membership Action Plan as early as 2008 in Bucharest, a decision that may have paved the way for the Russian aggression of 2014 and then 2022. Fifteen years later, history is repeating itself in Vilnius.

The July 2024 Declaration

A year later, the NATO summit in Washington in July 2024 produced a stronger declaration. The alliance reaffirmed Ukraine’s “irreversible path” toward membership and strengthened coordination mechanisms to address Ukraine’s military needs. Chatham House noted that “the outcomes are solid in terms of strengthening coordination mechanisms.”

The Washington declaration devotes six paragraphs to assistance for Ukraine. But once again, no date is set. No formal green light is given. The Atlantic Council notes that the alliance has “reinforced its support for Ukraine’s security and its irreversible path toward NATO,” which, in diplomatic language, means that the door remains ajar but cannot be walked through.

A New British Prime Minister, the Same Hesitations

The Washington summit is also the first for British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who is replacing Rishi Sunak. The British House of Commons notes that the summit focused on Ukraine’s path to membership and the challenges posed by Russia and China. The change in leadership in London does not alter the substance: support is reaffirmed, but timelines remain vague.

“Irreversibility” is a word diplomats love, because it costs nothing and commits no one.

February through April 2024: a lull

In February 2024, the U.S. Senate approved a $61 billion aid package for Ukraine. But House Speaker Mike Johnson refused to bring the bill to a vote for more than two months. During this six-month stalemate, Ukraine suffered critical shortages of artillery ammunition and air defense systems.

The Conversation reports that Mike Johnson delayed the vote “for several reasons” related to pressure from the right wing of his party. Reuters confirms that the aid package was passed “after months of delay.” The BBC notes that the vote had been “delayed by Republicans for months.” These months came at a cost in human lives.

The Consequences on the Ground

During the stalemate, Russian forces intensified their strikes on Ukrainian energy infrastructure and cities. The defenders of Avdiivka fell in February 2024, partly due to a lack of ammunition. Ukrainian artillery fired five to ten times fewer shells than Russian artillery. Every day of delay in Congress resulted in additional casualties on the front lines.

Total U.S. aid to Ukraine reached $188 billion, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, of which $164 billion came from five pieces of legislation, the last of which was passed in April 2024. At the end of 2024, an additional $20 billion loan was granted through the World Bank. These figures are substantial. But their late arrival has diminished their military effectiveness.

Every day of parliamentary delay in Washington comes at the cost of Ukrainian blood on the eastern front.

The Role of the Republican Opposition

Mike Johnson embodies the Republican Party’s contradictions regarding Ukraine. Elected Speaker of the House in October 2023, he inherited a bill approved by the Senate but refused to bring it to a vote. His faction, influenced by former President Donald Trump, believes that U.S. funds would be better spent domestically. The internal conflict between interventionist and isolationist Republicans is paralyzing aid efforts.

The final vote takes place on April 20, 2024. The $95 billion package, covering Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, is passed by a vote of 226 to 195 in the House. The close margin reveals the depth of the American divide. Joe Biden signs the bill immediately.

61 Billion Finally Released

The $61 billion allocated to Ukraine includes $8 billion in additional defense loans. The first arms shipments arrive in Ukraine in the weeks that follow. But the lost months cannot be made up. Ukrainian troops must replenish their stockpiles, reorganize their lines, and make up for the territorial losses suffered during the stalemate.

And yet, some in Washington view this legislative victory as a triumph. Mike Johnson is praised for finally giving in. But the damage is done. Ukraine has lost the strategic initiative, and Russia has had time to strengthen its defenses.

An aid package passed six months too late is an aid package, part of which is used to make up for the losses incurred during that delay.

Orbán and the Budget Veto

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has systematically obstructed European aid to Ukraine. In March 2025, he blocked a 90-billion-euro loan from the European Union to Ukraine, accusing Zelensky of deliberately blocking Russian oil supplies to Hungary via the Druzhba pipeline. The BBC reports that EU leaders accuse Orbán of “disloyalty and blackmail.”

The International Crisis Group analyzes the situation: Orbán “blocked a 90-billion-euro loan to Ukraine in March.” This veto was not an isolated act. Since 2022, Orbán has repeatedly blocked aid packages, sanctions against Russia, and joint statements by the European Union.

The €90 Billion Loan: Blocked, Then Unblocked

The blocking of the 90 billion euros is one of the most revealing episodes of Europe’s institutional weakness. A single country, representing less than 2% of the EU’s GDP, can paralyze aid to a nation at war against an aggressor. The unanimity rule in the European Council gives Orbán disproportionate power over the fate of millions of Ukrainians.

In May 2025, Hungary’s new Prime Minister, Péter Magyar, lifts the two-year veto on reimbursement for weapons sent to Ukraine. Politico reports that Magyar’s cabinet has “lifted a two-year veto,” but emphasizes that Hungary “will stop blocking” the aid without necessarily actively supporting it. The difference is substantial: the absence of opposition is not the same as support.

The European Union has created a mechanism whereby an ally of Moscow can dictate the pace of support for Kyiv.

Eurobarometer figures

The February 2024 Eurobarometer survey reveals that 55% of European Union citizens support supplying weapons to Ukraine, but that this figure is on the decline. Only 31% of those surveyed expect the war to end in 2024, a 9-point drop from the previous year. Fatigue is palpable, and it is not just political—it is also psychological.

European leaders are feeling this electoral pressure. As poll numbers decline, statements become more cautious, arms deliveries slower, and promises more vague. The link between public opinion and government action is direct, and Zelensky knows this better than anyone.

U.S. Public Opinion on the Decline, According to Gallup

The October 2024 Gallup poll shows that 41% of Americans believe their country is doing too much for Ukraine. Lawfare magazine notes, however, that 64% of Americans say they feel more sympathy for Ukraine than for Russia, compared to just 2% for the latter. Emotional support remains strong, but the will to act is waning.

The April 2026 YouGov poll offers a more nuanced perspective: 37% of Republicans want to reduce or halt military aid to Ukraine, down from 47% in December and a peak of 60% in March 2025. Public opinion is not monolithic; it fluctuates depending on domestic political events in the United States.

Polls measure public fatigue, not the righteousness of a cause. Public opinion is not a moral compass.

From 22% to 69% in favor of negotiations

The July 2025 Gallup poll reveals a striking figure: 69% of Ukrainians want a negotiated end to the war “as soon as possible,” compared with just 22% in previous polls. The website Russia Matters, affiliated with Harvard University, confirms this shift: the share of Ukrainians who believe their country should negotiate has risen from 22% to 69%.

This figure does not mean that Ukrainians want to surrender. Gallup clarifies that the majority continues to reject conditions imposed by Russia. But exhaustion is real. Three years of war, millions displaced, destroyed infrastructure, and considerable human losses: Ukrainian society is at the end of its rope.

The exhaustion of a people under bombardment

The same Gallup poll shows that 67% of Americans are pessimistic about the prospect of a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia. This pessimism is shared on both sides of the Atlantic. Ukrainians who want to negotiate are not cowards: they are people who have endured the unbearable and who hope, despite everything, that diplomacy can accomplish what weapons have failed to achieve.

And yet, Zelensky is holding firm on his red lines. He knows that negotiating under the pressure of exhaustion is to hand Vladimir Putin a victory that weapons have failed to deliver.

A people who ask for peace are not a people who are surrendering. They are a people who have exhausted their capacity for suffering.

Territorial integrity as a non-negotiable condition

In December 2025, Zelensky publicly defined Ukraine’s “red lines” for any peace negotiations. These include territorial integrity, security guarantees, and the withdrawal of Russian troops. The media outlet Rubryka reports that Zelensky set these “clear” conditions while remaining “open to compromise.” The nuance is crucial: Ukraine is ready to discuss, but not to compromise on its founding principles.

This position is consistent with the Peace Formula presented three years earlier. Zelensky has not wavered. It is the conditions on the ground and Western pressure that have changed around him.

The Unconditional Ceasefire of March 2025

Since March 2025, Zelensky has been proposing an unconditional and unlimited ceasefire. Vladimir Putin has rejected every appeal. Wikipedia summarizes the situation: Zelensky “proposes an unconditional and unlimited ceasefire,” while Putin “rejects these appeals.” The asymmetry is complete: one extends a hand, the other points a gun.

In June 2025, Putin publishes his own “peace proposal,” which the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute describes as a diplomatic maneuver lacking substance. The peace summit organized by Zelensky takes place without Russia’s participation, limiting its practical impact but affirming Ukraine’s leadership on the diplomatic agenda.

Proposing a ceasefire when the adversary refuses it means winning the moral battle before the battle on the ground.

A Man Alone Facing History

Zelensky carries a burden that few contemporary leaders can understand. He must simultaneously wage war, keep his people’s spirits up, court Western parliaments, navigate the internal factions of his allies, and resist mounting pressure to negotiate at a disadvantage. Every trip abroad is a calculated risk. Every speech is a high-stakes performance.

Since February 2022, he has addressed more than a dozen parliaments: the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Israel, the European Parliament, the Council of Europe, and the United Nations. Each speech is tailored to the audience, each cultural reference carefully chosen. It is a form of performance diplomacy, but one grounded in an authenticity that screens cannot replicate.

The Burden of Diplomacy in Wartime

Zelensky’s diplomacy has achieved real victories: Finland and Sweden’s accession to NATO, the European Union’s initial unity on sanctions, $188 billion in U.S. aid, and successive European aid packages. But it has also suffered stinging setbacks: the lack of a timeline for NATO accession, delays in weapons deliveries, Budapest’s obstruction, and waning public support.

And yet, Zelensky persists. He persists because he has no choice. He persists because every diplomatic retreat would mean losing square kilometers on the front lines. He persists because the alternative is surrender, and surrender is not in his vocabulary.

True courage isn’t wearing a military uniform. It’s smiling at lawmakers who applaud you while standing empty-handed.

Countries That Promise but Don’t Deliver

Western aid to Ukraine suffers from a structural problem: the gap between summit-level promises and actual deliveries. Germany promised Leopard 2 tanks but delivered them months late. The United States announced Patriot systems, but training Ukrainian operators took more than six months. The European Union promised one million artillery shells, a figure that was never reached.

Every broken promise undermines the West’s credibility and strengthens Vladimir Putin’s resolve, as he bets on the erosion of long-term support. The Russian strategy is simple: wait. Wait for public opinion to grow weary, for elections to change governments, and for competing crises (the Middle East, Taiwan, migration) to divert attention.

Africa, Asia, and the Non-Aligned Movement

Zelensky has also had to engage in diplomacy with countries in the Global South. His speech to the African Union and his appeals to Asian countries have met with limited response. Many developing countries view the conflict as a European war, not as a threat to the world order. This relative indifference complicates Zelensky’s strategy to isolate Russia diplomatically.

The war in Ukraine is a global war in terms of its consequences, but it remains perceived as a European affair by those who are not under fire.

Nighttime Videos on Social Media

From the very first night of the invasion, Zelensky has set a new standard for crisis communication. His video, filmed on a dark street in Kyiv on February 25, 2022, in which he declared, “I am here,” went viral around the world. In a matter of seconds, he dispelled rumors that he had fled and restored confidence to his people. It wasn’t a public relations stunt; it was an act of resistance.

Since then, his nightly videos have become a ritual. Every evening, Ukrainians and international observers await his message. The format is simple: a man standing, speaking directly to the camera, without artifice. Its effectiveness lies in this simplicity. Zelensky understood before anyone else that modern warfare is also won on screens.

A Strategy with Its Limits

But communication has its limits. After three years, the novelty has worn off. Western media are covering the conflict less intensively. Viewership for Zelensky’s speeches is declining. The emotion of the first few weeks has given way to a structural weariness that even the best communicator cannot reverse alone.

Repetition is the enemy of emotion. Even the most eloquent speech eventually comes across as routine when a war lasts three years.

A Budget Dependent on Foreign Aid

The Ukrainian economy contracted by about 30% in 2022. The state budget depends heavily on Western financial aid. Energy infrastructure, factories, ports, farmland—everything has been affected. Ukraine has become one of the world’s most aid-dependent countries, a situation that Zelensky must manage with a dignity that must never resemble begging.

The $20 billion loan granted in late 2024 by the United States through the World Bank illustrates this dependence. The money is coming in, but in the form of debt. Ukraine is going into debt to survive, accumulating future obligations that will weigh on its reconstruction.

Reconstruction as a Diplomatic Issue

The London Reconstruction Conference and the numerous summits on Ukraine’s future have generated pledges totaling hundreds of billions of euros. But reconstruction cannot truly begin as long as the bombings continue. Zelensky finds himself in a paradox: he must advocate for military aid to win the war and for reconstruction aid for the postwar period, knowing that the latter depends on the former.

Borrowing to defend oneself means mortgaging the peace one hopes to build.

A Mixed Record

Volodymyr Zelensky has done what no Western leader has been able to do: he has maintained the unity of an unlikely coalition for more than three years of all-out war. He secured $188 billion from the world’s leading power, the accession of two Nordic countries to NATO, unprecedented sanctions against Russia, and a level of European cohesion not seen since World War II.

But he has also faced the limitations of that same coalition: a U.S. Congress that has blocked aid for six months, a NATO that refuses to set a timeline for membership, and a Viktor Orbán who is blackmailing the European Union with the tacit consent of some. And yet, Zelensky holds firm. Because he has no other choice. Because his word holds the lives of 40 million Ukrainians in the balance.

The West Facing Its Own Reflection

Western hesitations are not merely a procedural flaw. They reveal a deeper crisis: the inability of democracies to maintain a coherent foreign policy beyond the media cycle. Zelensky is a mirror of this weakness. Every speech he delivers before a Western parliament is a reminder that proclaimed values come at a cost—and that this cost is borne by others.

Zelensky is not asking the West to fight in his place. He is asking it not to betray him as he fights for the West.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Ethical Commitment

This column was written with an open and unapologetic pro-Ukrainian stance. The editorial line is as follows: Volodymyr Zelensky is a hero of our time, Ukraine is suffering an illegal invasion, and the West bears some responsibility for the delays that have cost lives. This viewpoint is not neutral. It is stated openly.

Every figure cited in this column comes from a verifiable, dated source, identified in the Sources section. No figures have been invented or extrapolated without a source. Quotes from Zelensky and other figures are attributed and verifiable.

Methodology and Limitations

The sources used include official institutions (NATO, UN, presidence.gov.ua), polling organizations (Gallup, Eurobarometer, YouGov), news agencies (Reuters, BBC, PBS), think tanks (Chatham House, Atlantic Council, Council on Foreign Relations, International Crisis Group), and universities (Harvard). This column does not claim to be exhaustive. It offers a personal analysis based on verifiable facts.