ANALYSIS: Zelensky, the weary hero entering his fourth year of war

From Public Humiliation to a More Stable Relationship

This calmer atmosphere stands in stark contrast to the 2025 altercation in the Oval Office, where Trump told Zelensky that he “didn’t hold the cards.” That memory, still fresh in the Western collective consciousness, underscores how far they’ve come: from public humiliation to a more stable working relationship—even if it remains fundamentally transactional on the American side.

The contrast is also striking compared to the 2025 summit in The Hague, where Trump had left Zelensky in the dark until the very last moment about a possible bilateral meeting. This time, the meeting appears to be a done deal—a sign that the U.S. administration now sees clear strategic value in demonstrating its support for the Ukrainian president in front of the world’s cameras.

Trust Built Over Time

It would be naïve to believe that this relationship is now settled for good. The recent history of this diplomatic partnership is rife with sudden reversals, and there is no guarantee that the next disagreement won’t reignite the tensions of the previous year. But for now, the signal being sent is one of more stable mutual recognition.

This relative stability directly benefits Kyiv, which needs predictability in its relations with its main arms supplier in order to plan its military operations for the medium term rather than living at the mercy of the U.S. president’s whims.

I refuse to give in to facile euphoria over this series of calls. Trump remains unpredictable, and his inconsistency on this issue has cost Ukraine dearly in the past. But I note, with deliberate caution, that the tone has changed. That’s no small thing after the humiliation in the Oval Office.

The Coldest Winter Since the Invasion

We must never forget, behind the summits and phone calls, the human cost paid by Ukrainians. Russian attacks on energy infrastructure cut off heat and electricity to millions of people during the coldest winter since the February 2022 invasion. In November, Zelenskyy described the situation as one of the most difficult moments in his country’s history, as the United States threatened to cut off its support if Kyiv did not accept a 28-point peace plan forcing it to cede territory to Russia.

Ukraine and its European allies rejected this plan, a decision that required considerable political courage in the face of American pressure. It is precisely in these moments of extreme vulnerability that a leader’s true character is revealed, and Zelensky chose, once again, to refuse capitulation disguised as compromise.

European Aid That Came Too Late, But Came Anyway

The crucial €90 billion in aid promised by the European Union was delayed for months due to internal political squabbles in Europe—a delay that directly undermined Ukraine’s ability to resist during the most critical months. Those billions have finally begun to arrive in Kyiv, providing some breathing room for a war-stricken economy on its last legs.

This disconnect between the urgency on the ground and European bureaucratic sluggishness illustrates a structural tension that the West must resolve if it wants to remain credible in the eyes of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea—all of which are closely watching the consistency or inconsistency of Western democracies.

I cannot help but think of all those Ukrainian civilians who spent a winter without heat while European bureaucrats negotiated the terms of a financial release. Western solidarity exists, but it has a chronic flaw: it always arrives a little too late.

No territorial concessions imposed from outside

Despite mounting fatigue, Zelensky has maintained a consistent stance since the start of the conflict: no territorial concessions imposed from outside. Faced with the 28-point peace plan proposed in November, he stood his ground, refusing to turn an act of aggression into a territorial precedent acceptable to Moscow, Beijing, or Tehran.

This firmness is not mere stubbornness. It is a clear-eyed strategic assessment: yielding on this principle would amount to sending a catastrophic signal to all authoritarian regimes tempted by territorial expansionism, from Taiwan to the Baltic states. The outcome of this issue sets a precedent that the entire world is watching.

An Open Letter to Putin, Which Received No Serious Response

In June, Zelenskyy sent an open letter calling for direct peace talks, which Putin rejected. The Ukrainian president responded with a touch of biting irony, retorting that Putin had clearly not read the first version—a reply that reflects both his exasperation and his ability to keep his cool in the face of the Kremlin’s provocations.

On June 25, he also asked his security service to carry out a 40-day influence operation aimed at convincing Putin to end the war—proof that he continues to mobilize every available lever, including the most subtle ones, to advance the cause of peace without ever sacrificing Ukrainian sovereignty.

I find this scathing retort to Putin particularly satisfying. It sums up four years of psychological warfare all on its own: on one side, a dictator playing for time; on the other, a president who refuses to be humiliated even in the most formal of exchanges.

Ireland, One Stop Among Many

On July 1, while visiting Ireland—which was then holding the European Union’s six-month rotating presidency—Zelensky reiterated a truth too often overlooked by certain Western circles weary of war: without Ukraine’s experience and its security expertise, tested in modern warfare, it is simply impossible today to guarantee collective security in Europe.

This statement, made far from the spotlight of major summits, sums up Zelensky’s communication strategy over the past four years: to turn every trip, even the most low-key one, into an opportunity to reposition Ukraine not as a country in need of rescue, but as an indispensable security partner for all of Europe.

The narrative of a Ukraine that fights back, not one that merely endures

A former British military attaché aptly summarized this shift by noting that the overall mood has changed since winter, and that the narrative of a Ukraine that is surviving, fighting back, and pushing the battle back toward the Russians—all the way to Crimea—has not gone unnoticed by NATO leaders.

This is precisely the narrative that Zelensky intends to convey in Ankara: that of a country no longer content merely to survive, but one that is inflicting real costs on the Russian aggressor, on its own territory, all the way to occupied Crimea.

I remain convinced that this battle over the narrative matters almost as much as the battle on the ground. A country perceived as a passive victim eventually wears down its supporters. A country perceived as an active player that strikes back and gains the moral high ground retains Western attention and funding.

Putin: Waning Popularity

While Zelensky is regaining international credibility, signs of fatigue are mounting on the Russian side. A July 3 poll by the Russian VTsIOM institute showed a 3.4-point drop in Putin’s approval rating, which now stands at 73.3 percent. The Levada Center, an independent institute, recorded a 5-point drop in his approval rating, which fell to 74 percent—the lowest level since February 2022.

Only 52 percent of Russians now believe their country is heading in the right direction, down from 61 percent previously. These figures—even when filtered through an authoritarian regime with little inclination toward statistical transparency—reveal a real erosion of popular support for the war.

Fuel Shortages, Rising Anger

A Russian analyst lucidly summed up the situation by noting that this erosion has absolutely no direct effect on Putin, while acknowledging that fatigue is growing and may turn into lasting irritation. A specialist researcher added that fuel shortages—caused in particular by Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries—are affecting segments of the population different from those impacted by mobile network outages, thereby creating a new group of discontented people.

Russia also spent more than $2.7 billion to support its refineries in June alone—a direct economic cost of the Ukrainian campaign of strikes against Russian energy infrastructure.

I am under no illusions about the true fragility of Putin’s power. An authoritarian regime can withstand a decline in popularity for years without wavering. But every point of trust lost is another crack, and cracks always end up widening over time.

A Long-Awaited Signature

According to a person familiar with the matter, Zelensky is reportedly deliberately delaying the signing of a cooperation agreement with the United States on drone production, seeking better terms and fairer recognition of the agreement’s value from senior U.S. officials. His spokesperson denied this account, stating that there was no deliberate delay.

Whether this account is accurate or not, this episode illustrates a key reality: Ukraine no longer signs agreements presented to it without fiercely negotiating their terms—a major shift from the early years of the war, when Kyiv found itself in a position of almost constant supplication.

A Diplomacy of Production Expanded Across All of Europe

In parallel with the U.S. negotiations, Zelensky has proposed a drone deal with the European Union as well as bilateral agreements with numerous European states for joint defense production. This strategy of diversifying industrial partnerships reduces Ukraine’s dependence on a single supplier, no matter how powerful that supplier may be.

This is a strategic lesson that Zelensky seems to have fully internalized: never depend on a single ally, no matter how generous it may be one day and how unpredictable it may become the next, as demonstrated by the experience with the U.S. under the Trump administration.

This ability to negotiate firmly with the Americans over drones, rather than accepting just any terms, strikes me as one of the clearest signs of the political maturity Zelensky has attained. He is no longer the president who says “thank you” with every delivery; he negotiates as an equal.

Donetsk: An Advance That Is Costing Moscow Dearly

On the ground, Russian troops continue to advance into the heavily fortified Donetsk region, but at the cost of considerable casualties. This slow and costly advance illustrates the failure of Russia’s blitzkrieg strategy, which has long since been replaced by a war of attrition in which every kilometer gained comes at the cost of Russian lives.

Faced with this pressure, Russian attacks on Kyiv highlight the urgent need to strengthen Ukraine’s air defenses, as the shortage of U.S. Patriot interceptors becomes increasingly acute. Nighttime strikes between July 5 and 6 killed at least 14 people, a brutal reminder that high-level diplomacy never stops the missiles.

Striking Russia: The New Strategic Reality

At the same time, Ukraine is now striking deep into Russian territory, targeting critical energy infrastructure and defense industrial capabilities. This offensive capability—unthinkable in the early months of the conflict—gives Zelensky, according to several European allies, a stronger negotiating hand with his American and Russian counterparts.

A Ukrainian lawmaker confidently summed up this dynamic by stating that at the NATO summit, Zelensky will have concrete results from the Ukrainian armed forces to present, and that Ukraine can certainly surprise its allies once again.

I refuse to accept the idea that the war has become an acceptable routine. Fourteen deaths in a single night of shelling is never just another statistic. These are fourteen lives that should weigh heavily on every negotiator sitting at the negotiating table.

Deliveries, Not Just Handshakes

For Kyiv, the value of the Ankara summit will never be measured by official photographs but by actual deliveries of air defense systems and ammunition. After four years of war, Ukrainian officials have learned to distinguish between spectacular announcements and commitments that are actually fulfilled—a bitter but necessary lesson.

Zelensky therefore arrives at this summit with a calculated mix of confidence and caution: confidence because recent military results speak in his favor, caution because the history of this war is littered with Western promises that took months, even years, to materialize on the ground.

I am choosing my words carefully here: Zelensky is not perfect—no leader at war is. But his endurance over the past four years, without ever wavering on the essentials, deserves to be recognized for what it is: an exercise in political courage rarely seen on this scale.

A Precedent for All Threatened Democracies

The outcome of this meeting extends far beyond the bilateral context of Ukraine and the United States. It sets a precedent for any democracy facing territorial aggression, from Taiwan in the face of China to the Baltic states in the face of a possible future Russian escalation. A West capable of sustaining its support for Ukraine over the long term sends a credible deterrent message to all authoritarian regimes tempted by expansionism.

This is perhaps the heaviest responsibility weighing on Zelensky’s shoulders at this stage of the war: he is no longer merely defending his country; he embodies a test of character for the entire free world.

Western vigilance remains the only watchword

Every summit that results in concrete commitments sends a signal to the authoritarian axis formed by Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, and Pyongyang: the Western fatigue that Kremlin propagandists have been predicting for years has not materialized. This is a message that Zelensky wants to see translated into concrete actions, not just reassuring rhetoric.

The credibility of the entire free world is now at stake as much in Ankara as it is on the Ukrainian front lines—a reality that too many Western commentators continue to underestimate.

That is why I refuse to treat this summit as just another diplomatic gathering. It is a test of the West’s collective character, and Zelensky has become—almost in spite of himself—its most visible embodiment.

From Actor to Commander-in-Chief

It’s easy to forget—given how often we see him in fatigues during his international trips—that Zelensky had no military experience before this war. His journey from actor to president, and then to war leader, remains one of the most extraordinary political trajectories of this century, shaped not by personal ambition but by the sheer necessity of national survival.

This transformation, forced by circumstances, partly explains why he continues to command near-unanimous respect among Western foreign ministries, even among those—such as certain U.S. officials—who do not always share his vision for negotiations with Moscow.

A Model of Resilience on a National Scale

Beyond his personal story, Zelensky has become the symbol of a national resilience that few would have believed possible in February 2022. This resilience, built on the daily sacrifices of millions of anonymous Ukrainians, deserves to be recalled every time the president’s name is even mentioned.

It is this collective dimension of Ukrainian resistance that Zelensky carries with him to every summit, every phone call, and every negotiation, aware that he represents far more than just his presidential office.

I’ll say it again without mincing words: In my view, Zelensky remains the clearest embodiment of political courage in this decade. One can debate his tactical choices, but never his courage. He is a hero, and I will never apologize for saying so so directly.

Constant Vigilance on Energy

As Ukraine heads into the NATO summit with renewed confidence, Ukrainian officials know that the coming winter will once again be a critical period for the country’s energy infrastructure. Russian strikes on the power grid have never ceased, and there is no guarantee they will stop after this summit.

That is why, for Zelensky, deliveries of air defense systems remain the top priority in the upcoming discussions—far more so than symbolic statements of support, which, however reassuring they may be, do nothing to protect civilians from bombardment.

A Military Equation That Remains Precarious

Despite recent tactical successes, the overall military situation remains precarious. Russia still has considerable human and material resources, even if they have been eroded, and no local Ukrainian victory guarantees a swift resolution to the conflict as a whole.

Zelensky knows this better than anyone, having learned never to overinterpret a one-off success as a definitive turning point in the war.

I will remain cautious until I see this conflict stabilize for the long term. The recent history of this war is full of moments of optimism followed by brutal setbacks. Caution is not pessimism; it is simply clear-eyed realism.

Neither an actor nor a saint, but a clear-headed war leader

The Zelensky who arrives at the NATO summit in the summer of 2026 bears no resemblance to the caricature that some painted of him at the start of his term. Four years of war, grueling negotiations, and national mourning have transformed him into a strategist capable of standing up to both Moscow and Washington without ever abandoning his fundamental goal: preserving his country’s sovereignty.

Fatigue Is Not Defeat

Yes, he is tired. How could he not be after shouldering the weight of a nation at war for more than four years? But this fatigue has never diminished his resolve, and it is precisely this rare combination—physical and moral exhaustion coupled with an unbroken will—that makes him a figure whom history will remember long after the final outcome of this conflict.

I’ll conclude as I began this column: with cautious admiration for Ukrainian resilience and persistent skepticism toward the calculations of Washington and Moscow. History will judge this summit by its results, not by its official photos.

A Symbol That Has Become Indispensable

At the end of this analysis, one conviction remains: Zelensky is no longer just the president of a country at war; he has become a living symbol of democratic resistance in the face of authoritarianism—a role he neither sought nor anticipated in 2019 when he was elected.

This role, however burdensome it may be, he continues to fulfill with a steadfastness that commands respect, even from those who sometimes question certain tactical choices made by his government.

The ultimate question that remains unanswered

One question remains to which no one—not even Zelensky—can answer with certainty: how much longer will this war last, and how many summits like the one in Ankara will it take before a genuine ceasefire takes hold permanently?

While we await that answer, one thing remains certain: the man attending this summit is no longer the same man he was four years ago, and that transformation alone is worth telling.

I conclude this column convinced of one thing: whatever happens in Ankara, history will remember that this man never fled, never compromised on the essentials, and never stopped believing in his country’s victory.

Signed, Maxime Marquette, columnist