Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, is a lone voice of reason in stand-off with Russia

“Nothing about you without you” is a catchphrase to remind medics not to forget that the patient might have something to say, too. The same phrase is now being parroted by the United States and Nato about heeding the voice of Ukraine in the current stand-off with Russia.

Given that, insofar as any beginning to this crisis can be traced, it lies in the release of US intelligence reports about Russian troop movements near Ukraine’s eastern border back in November-December, Ukraine would seem to be a key player here. However, for all the protestations from Washington and London about its voice being heard, it has not been and is still not being heard, despite Ukraine’s best efforts.

One reason would appear to be that it is not saying what the US, the UK and the more hawkish Europeans want to hear. Rather than amplifying the alarm about an imminent Russian invasion, Kiev has been saying “calm down”. Not only that, but the central message from Ukrainian officials, up to and including the president, has been that what it sees as the overheated rhetoric coming from some western capitals risks making the situation considerably worse.

And it is hard to disagree. Were Russian troops to cross into Ukraine in large numbers, it is Ukraine that would find itself in all-out war, Ukrainians who would be volunteering to fight for their homeland, and Ukrainian land that would be devastated.

At a well-publicised press conference and in a series of interviews, Nato secretary general Jens Stoltenberg drew a clear distinction between Nato members – including the Baltic States – that were protected by the Article 5 guarantee of mutual defence and Ukraine, which is not a member of Nato, and would not benefit from that guarantee, even if Russia invaded.

In that event, sanctions would be the west’s weapon – unless Russia went on to attack one or more Nato countries, in which case Nato would respond. That eventuality was why Nato forces were being beefed up in the Baltic and the Black Sea; they were not being positioned to be dispatched to Ukraine.

It is the disparity between the alarm being sounded in the most hawkish western capitals, including London, and the calm that prevails across Ukraine that has been one of the most striking aspects of this potential conflict so far. It extends to the soldiers in the trenches of the simmering war zone in Ukraine’s east, and it is a disparity that may gradually be dawning on the UK public, too, thanks to the number of reporters now assembled in Kiev, professing their honest surprise at what they have found.

The credit for this – or what I would see as the credit; some may see it as folly or wilful blindness – belongs squarely with Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy. You remember the one: the former actor who played the president in a satirical drama, Servant of the People, that he also scripted; the novice politician who won a landslide majority across pretty much all parts of his then-divided country, even as western leaders and Ukrainian exiles made dismissive sotto voce comments about Ukrainian voters at best not really knowing what they were doing, and at worst falling for a “demagogue”.

Having covered Zelenskiy’s campaign, and returned to Ukraine since (in so far as the pandemic allowed), I begged to differ then – and I still do. In all the hue and cry about an existential threat to Ukraine from Russia, Zelenskiy is almost the only national leader who has kept a cool head. If there is no war, and we have to hope there will not be, this will largely be down to the responsibility with which Zelenskiy has exercised national leadership. He may have arrived in the job as a neophyte, but two and a half years on, he is showing a degree of wisdom that most of the political veterans on the current scene manifestly lack.

Last Friday, in Ukraine’s latest attempt to get its voice heard, Zelenskiy addressed foreign ambassadors, and then gave a 90-minute press conference, largely for the benefit of the international journalists who have descended on Kiev. Zelenskiy came over as humane, in charge, in command of his material and confident in his judgments, while also admitting that he could be wrong.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment, sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

He explained that his country had effectively been at war in the east for the best part of eight years – armed conflict would be nothing new. He was also bold enough to challenge US assessments of the situation. President Biden knew his country (the US), he said, “and I know mine”.

Asked to justify his questioning of US forecasts of an invasion, he noted how wrong US intelligence had been about Taliban victory in Afghanistan and claimed that the US had said – for its own political purposes – that Russian forces were leaving the border area last April, when Ukrainian information on the ground said they were still there.

Responding to a question about more sanctions against Russian money in London (aimed at eliciting an attack on the UK), Zelenskiy said two things: that it was a bit awkward for him to attack London, given the weapons donations, but also that dirty money wasn’t an exclusively London problem, it was a problem connected to oligarchs throughout the post-Soviet world, including Ukraine. I have not heard a single leader, in the east or west, ever state this evident truth.

At which point, it might be asked why Zelenskiy is so underrated in most western capitals, as I believe he is. First, because most western governments failed to anticipate his election. They had banked on the return of Petro Poroshenko, the incumbent, with whom they had reached a comfortable modus vivendi. It took at least a year for the US and the EU to accept that Zelenskiy was there for the duration and forge new ties.

Second, because Zelenskiy was elected, at least in part, on an undertaking to end the war in the east. To many, that implied being steamrolled by Russia. In the event, Zelenskiy proved wiser, more patient and harder-headed than his western detractors had expected, and seemed to earn a degree of respect from Putin in the process. Peace has not broken out, but prisoners have been exchanged, casualties have fallen, and Zelenskiy has proved himself to be no pushover.

And third, because western leaders forgot the lesson of Reagan: that an actor with a feel for the popular mood may be rather well equipped to exercise national leadership. Zelenskiy is not only a master-communicator, but also has a law degree, ran a highly successful production company, and has his own honestly-earned money, which makes him less beholden to donors at home and abroad.

Above all, Zelenskiy appears to have a far more realistic recognition than most of those trying to pull his country irrevocably into the orbit of east or west of where his country sits. He may also appreciate something else in current circumstances: that the current stand-off is not only, or primarily, about Ukraine – it is about future security arrangements for the whole of Europe. Russia is targeting Ukraine now, because Moscow wants to get the west’s attention, and it sees how much the US and Nato have staked on Ukraine.

So, while it is quite right that there should be no discussions about Ukraine without Ukraine, this is not the only reason why Zelenskiy deserves to be listened to. He may have fallen short on honouring many of his election promises, but his stand against reckless war talk and his cool head in a crisis have made him a rare voice of sense.