In a striking and controversial move, Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, recently found himself immersed in the heart of US electoral politics. Rather than heading directly to Washington, DC, to solicit additional support and funds from the US government, as he has done countless times before, Zelensky made a detour to the critical battleground state of Pennsylvania. Accompanied by Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro and Sen. Bob Casey, Zelensky’s presence on American soil seemed more like a political endorsement tour than a diplomatic mission.
Zelensky’s foray into US politics raises ethical and legal questions. His involvement in the electoral battleground of Pennsylvania is seen by critics as a clear violation of the Hatch Act of 1939, which restricts executive branch employees, including military personnel, from participating in political campaigns. The US Air Force’s transportation of Zelensky, along with the political nature of his visit, crosses a line many find troubling.
Sen. Bob Casey, locked in a fiercely competitive election according to recent polls from The Washington Post and Rasmussen Reports, appeared with Zelensky as if the Ukrainian leader’s endorsement was part of the strategy to swing voters. This type of foreign political interference, especially by a sitting president, is unprecedented in modern US history and casts a shadow on the supposed neutrality of diplomatic visits.
Zelensky’s political interference didn’t stop there. Alongside his appearances with key Democratic figures, Zelensky also participated in a fashion shoot for The New Yorker, staying true to his signature disaster-chic look-olive cargo pants and a simple tee. The piece was predictably fawning, with questions as sycophantic as whether Zelensky felt he was comparable to Winston Churchill. This media narrative fits neatly into a broader trend of lionizing Zelensky as a heroic figure, elevating him to Churchillian heights.
But Zelensky’s interview also took a political turn. Rather than maintaining a neutral stance, as one might expect from a foreign leader reliant on bipartisan support, Zelensky directly criticized former President Donald Trump. “My feeling is that Trump doesn’t really know how to stop the war even if he might think he knows how,” Zelensky remarked. Such comments tread into dangerous territory, as foreign leaders rarely-if ever-publicly criticize potential candidates during American elections.
It’s worth considering what this behavior would have looked like in a historical context. Imagine Winston Churchill, during the height of World War II, coming to the US and publicly criticizing the Republican candidate running against Franklin D. Roosevelt. The notion seems preposterous, not only because it would undermine the political neutrality that Churchill maintained, but because it would almost certainly provoke backlash. Churchill was no tool, and yet Zelensky seems to be adopting a very different approach.
This involvement in American politics creates the perception that Zelensky is, intentionally or not, becoming a partisan figure. Aligning himself with the Democrats, while actively criticizing Republicans, particularly Trump and his allies, could have far-reaching consequences for Ukraine’s support in a politically divided America.
In the same interview, Zelensky took aim at Republican Sen. JD Vance, calling him “too radical” and suggesting Vance needs a history lesson on World War II. Vance, a key figure in Trump’s circle, has been an outspoken critic of US involvement in Ukraine and Zelensky’s leadership. Vance’s positions, while contentious, are grounded in legitimate concerns about the war, its impact on US resources, and the long-term strategy for Ukraine.
Vance’s critique of Ukraine includes several key points that resonate with a growing number of Americans weary of the conflict. First, he pointed out Ukraine’s entrenched corruption, a problem that organizations like Transparency International have long noted. While the courage of Ukrainian troops on the ground is commendable, Vance argues that it doesn’t erase the country’s deep-seated political corruption.
He has also raised concerns about the lack of transparency in tracking US weapons sent to Ukraine, echoing conclusions from the US Inspector General for the Department of Defense. This absence of accountability leaves questions about whether billions of taxpayer dollars are being effectively used or siphoned away.
Perhaps most notably, Vance has been blunt about the imbalance of military production between Russia and Ukraine’s allies. At the Munich Security Conference, Vance pointed out that the West simply isn’t producing enough weapons to win a prolonged war against Russia. His assessment of artillery production alone is alarming-Russia is producing over 500,000 155mm artillery shells per month, while the US churns out a mere fraction of that. Vance’s argument that Ukraine’s manpower and the West’s industrial base are insufficient for a long-term victory is difficult to dismiss.
Given the sharp criticism from Trump and Vance, it’s no wonder Zelensky appears eager to back the Democratic ticket, particularly Vice President Kamala Harris, who has pledged unwavering support for Ukraine. In a press conference with Zelensky, Harris affirmed, “My support for the people of Ukraine is unwavering … I will work to ensure Ukraine prevails in this war.” Zelensky, undoubtedly, sees the Democratic administration as a safer bet for continued US support, particularly as Republican voices grow louder in opposition to further military aid.
Zelensky’s open political involvement in the US is a dangerous precedent. While it’s natural for a foreign leader to engage with American policymakers, especially one reliant on US aid, the overt partisanship displayed by Zelensky is unprecedented. Criticizing potential candidates and aligning himself with the Democratic Party could alienate a significant portion of the US population and deepen political divisions over Ukraine.
Zelensky’s gamble on the Democrats may pay off in the short term, but it risks backfiring if Republicans take power in 2024. A president who has inserted himself into the electoral fray, criticizing Republicans and aligning with Democrats, may find his welcome in Washington much less warm in the future.
The post Zelensky’s dangerous dance with US politics and partisanship appeared first on BLiTZ.
