The recent public clash between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has reignited debates about Zelensky’s role in the outbreak of war with Russia. A classical realist analysis provides the best framework for understanding both the conflict and Zelensky’s role in it.
Simply put, the classical realist framework holds that, in an anarchic international system, where no central authority enforces order, states must rely on their own power for survival. It further holds that an important consequence of this reality is the “security dilemma” — a dynamic that emerges when one state’s attempts to enhance its security are perceived as threats by other states, triggering cycles of mistrust and escalation. These systemic pressures, combined with flawed leadership — marked by ambition, hubris and miscalculation — tell us much about how manageable crises can spiral into devastating wars.
The unfolding tragedy in Ukraine provides a powerful case of this dynamic, revealing both the role played by the insecurities of the various players and the role of human agency, especially that of Zelensky, in triggering the war.
Some in the West have elevated Zelensky to the status of a 21st-century Churchill — a wartime leader standing resolutely against tyranny. But this comparison is misleading. Churchill confronted an existential threat from a power bent on global conquest. Zelensky, by contrast, operated in a context where diplomatic alternatives existed. His refusal to take these off-ramps, both before and after hostilities began, reflected a dangerous mix of incompetence, misunderstanding, overconfidence and nationalist fervor. Realism reminds us that while anarchy and the security dilemma create conditions for conflict, it is human agency that often converts these structural tensions into war.
Author
Andrew
Latham
Non-Resident Fellow
Events on Ukraine-Russia
