International

Zelensky, entering new stage of war, faces political test

Published

4 years ago

April 3, 2022

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky

Nearly every day, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, clad in dark green, records a video address to the Ukrainian people, sometimes seated at a desk, other times standing outside in the dark of the night. Lately, he has been warning of difficulties yet to come.

“We all equally want to win — all of us — but there will be battles ahead,” Zelensky said Thursday, with street lamps illuminating Kyiv’s ornate House of Chimeras, part of the government complex, behind him. “We still have a difficult path to travel to get everything we are striving for.”

Among the most challenging paths is that facing Zelensky himself.

The 44-year-old Ukrainian comedian has evolved from a political neophyte, widely doubted among Western leaders and Ukrainian voters in the run-up to the war, into a crisis commander who has cemented his place in the history of Ukrainian nationhood and inspired a will to resist at home and abroad with personal bravery.

Now, as the war grinds on in its sixth week and peace talks between Ukrainian and Russian negotiators continue, Zelensky faces a new set of challenges. He must keep up morale and the will to fight amid battlefield casualties, economic devastation and vast civilian suffering. He must retain the confidence of Western nations that Ukraine can prevail to ensure weapons keep flowing.

But as time goes on he must also figure out what if any sort of political agreement with Moscow to end the war will be acceptable to a Ukrainian population riding high after repelling Russian forces in many areas and feeling inspired to resist by his own actions and words.

“He has relied on intense feelings of nationalism to continue to fight this war, but those are exactly the forces that make it extremely difficult to put this war to an end,” American University political science professor Keith Darden said, noting that it’s unclear how long Ukraine can keep up the fight. “That’s the real dilemma in my mind.”

READ ALSO:

Zelensky for months has unsuccessfully been seeking a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss Moscow’s myriad demands. David Arakhamia, head of the Ukrainian delegation to the talks, said Saturday that Kyiv is preparing for a possible meeting between Zelensky and Putin in Turkey.

For Zelensky, however, any deal with the Kremlin is politically fraught.

One effect may be to prolong the war if Zelensky doesn’t feel he has the public backing to make the compromises necessary to stop it. Another might be that his extraordinary public support erodes in service of a peace agreement.

Zelensky has been laying the groundwork with Ukrainians to end the country’s constitutionally enshrined quest to enter NATO, noting that the alliance isn’t prepared to accept Kyiv. He has focused efforts instead on securing European Union membership.

The Ukrainian leader has shown flexibility and practicality, defining victory in an interview with the Economist last month as “being able to save as many lives as possible.”

“Our land is important, yes, but ultimately it’s just territory,” he said.

At the same time, however, he pledged to fight Russia “to the last city.”

Zelensky also has warned Ukrainians that the Russians are likely regrouping to focus on attacking a more targeted set of areas, particularly those where Ukrainian forces may face the most difficulty — and has called on Ukrainians to steel themselves for a long conflict.

“Right now everyone is eager to resist — eager if not to win, then to batter Russia as much as possible,” said Mikhail Minakov, a political analyst on Ukraine at the Kennan Institute. “He is in a sort of Catch-22. He tries to find the possible way of staying in this position, remaining charismatic, but at the same time to find a solution.”

Underestimated in Moscow and the West

After playing Ukraine’s president in a popular TV series, Zelensky entered office in 2019 with extraordinary popular support, commanding 73 percent of the vote, as well as a majority for his party in the Ukrainian parliament. He attracted a broad and disparate swath of voters with his populist outsider appeal and promise to end the war in Ukraine’s east.

But by late last year, as Russia amassed troops and materiel on Ukraine’s border, Zelensky’s approval rating had plummeted to about 30 percent. Met with Russian intransigence and Ukrainian political constraints, he failed to end the war. His inexperienced team realized the difficulty of implementing big changes.

Russia’s invasion appeared to indicate the Kremlin also thought little of Zelensky, expecting the former actor to flee Kyiv out of fear for his own life in a manner that would hobble the country’s ability to resist.

Zelensky was equally underestimated among Ukraine’s partner nations in the West, where many officials viewed him as an inexperienced and somewhat unpredictable leader who failed to appreciate the seriousness of the security situation. In the days before the war, Zelensky’s advisers expressed doubts Russia would invade. One senior adviser, reflecting the atmosphere around Zelensky, insisted the Russians were “bluffing” and looking only to intimidate Ukraine.

READ ALSO:

Russian forces had massed on the border before and backed down. The aide said he saw no reason to believe that this time would be different — and blamed the Biden administration for stoking panic with talk of an invasion. He said that Zelensky’s main responsibility was to avoid a run on banks and capital flight from the country.

But career officials within Ukraine’s national security apparatus agreed with U.S. and British intelligence assessments that Russia was likely to invade. They were frustrated in their own efforts to persuade Zelensky and felt his closest advisers weren’t telling him the hard truth that an invasion looked imminent, said one senior Ukrainian official.

In mid-January, CIA Director William J. Burns flew to Ukraine and met with Zelensky. According to people familiar with their conversation, Burns shared intelligence that had persuaded U.S. officials about Russia’s intentions. At the time, intelligence also suggested that Russian hit teams might already be in Kyiv, according to officials familiar with the information who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomacy and intelligence.

Zelensky asked if he and his family were personally in danger. The CIA director made clear that the president needed to take his security seriously. Zelensky was skeptical, the Ukrainian officials said. The Zelensky senior adviser said that the information Burns shared sounded dire but, in his opinion, wasn’t specific enough for the Ukrainians to act. U.S. officials have disputed that characterization, noting that by the time Zelensky and Burns met, the Biden administration had already declassified intelligence including satellite photos that showed Russian forces moving into attack formations.

Zelensky didn’t call on his citizens to evacuate or authorize a general mobilization. Cafes and shops in the capital remained open until the very last moment. A former Western intelligence official in Kyiv at the time said he was bewildered that the government wasn’t conducting frequent tests of air raid warning sirens and public drills.

For much of January, as the United States and other NATO allies delivered one warning after another to the Ukrainians of the buildup on their border, Kyiv’s political world was focused on treason accusations against Zelensky’s predecessor, former president Petro Poroshenko.

A hero emerges

After the Russians invaded and tried to make a lightning dash into Kyiv, Zelensky demonstrated far more mettle than politicians in both Russia and the West had expected, refusing to leave the capital even as those intent on killing him tried to enter the city.

“I was positively surprised,” Minakov said. “I myself see the emotion of this charisma. I respect him for what he is doing — and that is an unusual feeling. In Ukraine, we don’t usually respect politicians.”

Even after Zelensky’s display of courage, many around the world still expected him to be killed by Russian invaders in Kyiv or forced to flee the capital within days. But the Ukrainian military performed far better than many expected. The Russians, meanwhile, bungled their assumptions and logistics, stalling the advance on the capital.

With the prospect of finally meeting Putin in person for peace talks, Zelensky is armed with a groundswell of political support, as well as battlefield successes. He faces a test of whether he can parlay that political capital into a lasting peace acceptable among most Ukrainians.

It’s unclear if the moment is right, as Russian forces still appear determined to take more territory in the east, and Ukraine so far remains unwilling to give up any of the land Russia has claimed since Feb. 24.

Serhiy Leshchenko, a former member of Ukraine’s parliament now advising Zelensky’s chief of staff, said despite the desire to continue resisting, there are perhaps less-vocal Ukrainians under siege who want and need an agreement to stop the fighting.

“People living under bombing in Mariupol, Kharkiv and Chernihiv have much less access to social media than people in a safe place,” Leshchenko said, before noting the dilemma facing Zelensky.

“People want to stop the war. People want normal life to come back,” Leshchenko said. “People want to defend Ukraine from the aggressor. People don’t want to lose territory and sovereignty.

THE WASHINGTON POST

Related Topics:political test war Zelensky

Up Next

Zelensky makes surprise Grammys appearance to urge support for Ukraine

Don't Miss

Russia Hits Ukraine’s Strategic Port Of Odessa

International

Iran Denies US Talks After Trump Announces Negotiations as War Enters Sixth Month

Published

1 day ago

August 3, 2026

Trends Admin

Iran Denies US Talks After Trump Announces Negotiations as War Enters Sixth Month

Tehran rejects Washington’s claim of imminent talks, says discussions with Oman over Strait of Hormuz are separate and ongoing

Iran has firmly denied that it is currently holding negotiations with the United States, contradicting President Donald Trump’s announcement that talks would begin on Monday afternoon. The conflicting claims come amid heightened tensions over the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s nuclear program, with the war between the two countries now in its sixth month. The war began on February 28, 2026, when the United States and Israel launched surprise strikes against Iran, targeting key leadership, air defence capabilities, missile sites, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy. The opening salvo included an attack on a leadership meeting in Tehran that killed Supreme Leader Sayyid Ali Khamenei, Iran’s defence minister, the chief of staff of the armed forces, and the commander of the IRGC. Since then, months of on-off diplomacy have led to periods of relative calm, though fighting has continued to flare.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei stated during a televised press conference on Monday that “Iran is not currently holding talks with the United States”. He elaborated that Tehran has no plans to host or send delegations, and members of Iran’s negotiating delegation remain inside the country. Baqaei clarified that Iran’s current discussions are focused exclusively on Oman regarding a temporary safe route through the Strait of Hormuz. He emphasized that reaching an agreement with Oman would not mean the reopening of the strait, as the situation would remain unchanged while US “aggression” continued. “So long as the United States continues to violate its commitments, the situation in the Strait of Hormuz will not change,” Baqaei told his weekly press conference. The spokesman also warned Gulf states against allowing the United States to use their territory for attacks on Iran, urging countries in the region not to facilitate US military action.

READ ALSO:

On Sunday, President Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One that negotiations with Iran would begin Monday afternoon. He claimed that the talks would cover the Strait of Hormuz and ultimately the denuclearisation of Iran. “The deal is imminent, having to do with the Hormuz Strait and also, ultimately, the denuclearization of Iran,” Trump said. Trump stated that he had been asked by Iran as well as US partners Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar to hold off on strikes, which he claimed would have been “the biggest attack since World War II”. In a post on Truth Social, Trump wrote: “Based on this request, I have agreed, for the future benefit of the WORLD and, likewise, the survival of a successful and prosperous Iran, to cancel the attack, subject to being able to rapidly make a DEAL”. However, Iranian media has denied that Tehran asked Trump not to strike. Trump has repeatedly predicted that a negotiated settlement is within reach, although previous diplomatic efforts have been followed by renewed exchanges of military strikes.

While denying US talks, Iranian officials confirmed progress in discussions with Oman over a new shipping route through the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said negotiations with Oman on a mechanism for ships to transit the waterway were “nearing completion and in their final stages,” according to Iranian state media. The talks have been ongoing for months between Tehran and Muscat, the two littoral states bordering the strait, with discussions continuing at both the technical and political levels. Baqaei told state television that a deal was close with Oman over a new route through the strait, describing it as “one path with entry and exit lanes” that would respect the sovereign rights of both sides. The route under discussion will be temporary, he said, and through it, Iran will ensure safe navigation. Baqaei emphasized that Iran and Oman, as coastal states of the strait, are required to cooperate to ensure the safe passage of vessels through the waterway and reach a defined mechanism. He noted that Tehran needs to ensure that the Strait of Hormuz would not be exploited by the parties that have carried out aggression against Iran, adding that “this requires us to adopt a mechanism in which Iran’s sovereign rights are fully respected”.

The conflicting claims come against the backdrop of a war that has significantly disrupted global energy markets. Before the war, the Strait of Hormuz served as a conduit for approximately 20% of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas. Iran has largely closed the strait, causing energy prices to rise and stoking broader inflation. On June 18, Iran and the United States signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on ending the conflict, under which the two countries were scheduled to hold negotiations within a 60-day period to reach a final agreement. Under the understanding, Iran agreed to allow fee-free maritime transit through the Strait of Hormuz for a period of 60 days. However, the talks’ fate has been uncertain due to recent military escalation. The US attempted to undermine Iran’s sovereignty by establishing an unsafe corridor near Omani shores, prompting Iran’s firm response to re-impose restrictions on the strait.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian posted on X that “We must strive to compel the enemy to remain committed to what it has signed”. He expressed belief that the MoU would be the focal point of Iran’s foreign relations in the future. Baqaei also revealed that over the past 24 hours, “we have received numerous calls from the United Kingdom, Bulgaria, and Ukraine stating that they will not be part of the war against Iran”. Iranian lawmaker Hassan Ghashghavi, spokesman for the parliament’s national security commission, said on Sunday that mediators were trying to revive the US-Iran memorandum of understanding that was agreed in June. That agreement was not intended as a final peace deal, but as a stepping stone to negotiations on a comprehensive agreement, though it did include provisions on Hormuz. “They know that the main issue and, in fact, the key to the matter right now is the issue of the Strait of Hormuz, so yes, there is an exchange of views,” Ghashghavi said.

Trump’s announcement had immediate market effects, with oil prices falling at the opening of Asian trade. The president said he had been asked by Iran as well as US partners Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar to hold off on further strikes. Eli Cohen, Israel’s energy minister and a member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s security cabinet, said there was close security and intelligence coordination between Israel and the US on everything happening in the region. However, he added: “With or without an agreement, and regardless of any external commitments, if Iran attempts to renew its nuclear programme or advance its ballistic missile industries, we will be there. We will take action, and we will strike”. In his call with Trump, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman stressed the “necessity of prioritising dialogue to de-escalate tensions” in the Middle East, according to Saudi Arabia’s state news agency. Many observers have expressed skepticism about the latest diplomatic push. Vali Nasr, an Iran expert at Johns Hopkins University, stated there was “no clear path” for Trump to achieve his goals, noting that “He is trying his hand now at a diplomatic solution to avoid military escalation. But there’s no clear path, either diplomatically or militarily, to get Trump to a place where he can declare victory”.

Iran Denies US Talks After Trump Announces Negotiations as War Enters Sixth Month

Additional reporting by Reuters, AFP, Ynetnews, and The New Arab

International

Oil Prices Slide as Trump Announces Fresh Iran Talks, Easing Supply Fears

Published

2 days ago

August 3, 2026

Trends Admin

Oil Prices Slide as Trump Announces Fresh Iran Talks, Easing Supply Fears

Global oil prices fell sharply in early Asian trading on Monday after United States President Donald Trump announced fresh negotiations with Iran, raising hopes of easing tensions in the Middle East and restoring normal shipping through the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz.

Brent crude, the international oil benchmark for September delivery, dropped 4.69 per cent to $83.81 a barrel as of 2250 GMT on Sunday, while the US benchmark, West Texas Intermediate (WTI), declined 4.67 per cent to $80.72.

The decline followed Trump’s announcement on Sunday that Washington would resume diplomatic engagement with Tehran instead of pressing ahead with major military strikes against the Islamic Republic.

READ ALSO:

“Now what we’re doing is we’re talking to them in the form of a negotiation. It begins tomorrow afternoon,” Trump said, without disclosing the venue or those expected to participate in the talks.

Oil markets have remained highly volatile since the conflict between the United States, Israel and Iran escalated in late February, disrupting traffic through the Strait of Hormuz—a critical maritime corridor for global crude oil and liquefied natural gas exports.

The renewed diplomatic push has fuelled optimism that the waterway could soon reopen fully, reducing the risk of prolonged disruptions to global energy supplies.

Adding to the positive sentiment, Iran said on Sunday that it was close to reaching an agreement with Oman on establishing a new shipping arrangement through the Strait of Hormuz, a development that could further stabilise oil exports from the region.

Oil Prices Slide as Trump Announces Fresh Iran Talks, Easing Supply Fears

International

Hamas Accepts US-Backed Disarmament Plan as Trump Unveils Gaza Peace Roadmap

Published

4 days ago

July 31, 2026

Trends Admin

Hamas Accepts US-Backed Disarmament Plan as Trump Unveils Gaza Peace Roadmap

A landmark agreement could reshape the future of Gaza, but Israel’s official response remains pending as key details hang in the balance.

In a significant diplomatic breakthrough, the Palestinian group Hamas has formally accepted a United States-backed proposal aimed at ending the 10-month-long war in the Gaza Strip. The agreement, unveiled by U.S. President Donald Trump, outlines a phased roadmap that includes the group’s complete disarmament and a gradual withdrawal of Israeli troops from the territory. The announcement, made on Friday, marks one of the most substantial developments since the October ceasefire. However, the deal remains conditional, and Israel has not yet issued an official response, leaving the international community in a state of cautious optimism.

Under the proposed framework, Hamas has agreed to surrender its weapons to the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) , a Palestinian governing body established under the Trump-administration-led Board of Peace initiative. The disarmament process is designed to be phased and verifiable, beginning with an initial phase where Hamas police forces are expected to hand over light weapons to the NCAG within the first two weeks. This would be followed by a second, more extensive phase lasting between 200 and 350 days, during which the full decommissioning of heavy weapons, tunnels, depots, and weapons production facilities would take place under strict international oversight. The roadmap follows a “zero trust” model, meaning each phase of disarmament must be independently verified before the next step of Israeli military withdrawal can proceed. Echoing this cautious approach, Nickolay Mladenov, the Board of Peace’s High Representative for Gaza, emphasized that “withdrawal must move in lockstep with decommissioning,” underscoring the need for synchronized and carefully monitored implementation.

For Hamas, the decision represents a difficult but necessary concession aimed at alleviating the suffering of Palestinian civilians. Ghazi Hamad, a member of the group’s negotiating team, described the move as a sacrifice made for the sake of the people in Gaza, to save them from continued killing and displacement. He further clarified that Israel will not intervene in the disarmament process, which will be solely managed by the NCAG. However, a senior Hamas official stressed that full implementation of the agreement depends on Israel fulfilling its prior commitments under the initial ceasefire, which include ending all military attacks, withdrawing forces to October 2025 positions, and significantly increasing humanitarian aid deliveries into the besieged territory.

READ ALSO:

As of this report, Israel’s government has not formally responded to the proposal, and its position remains a critical unknown. An Israeli political source indicated that the current framework does not “satisfactorily” address Israel’s core demand for the complete demilitarisation of the Gaza Strip. The source also reiterated that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent meeting with President Trump in Washington did not include discussions on the Gaza conflict, casting doubt on the level of Israeli engagement with the plan. Another major sticking point is the so-called “Yellow Line” buffer zone, with an Israeli official insisting there would be no withdrawal from this area before Hamas is fully disarmed. Despite these reservations, the U.S. has expressed confidence that Israel will ultimately adhere to the 20-point plan, with one official noting that President Trump would be “very, very disappointed” if it did not.

The agreement was brokered by a coalition of international mediators, including Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey, who have been engaged in months of difficult negotiations. Egypt’s state-linked Al-Qahera News reported that Cairo is expected to host another meeting to advance discussions on the second phase of the truce, signaling continued diplomatic momentum. A diplomatic source familiar with the negotiations emphasized the roadmap’s commitment to unity and order, stating that “there will be no exceptions for certain weapons or certain people,” and that the goal is to establish “one authority, one law, one weapon.” The roadmap also includes a verification mechanism designed to monitor compliance by both parties, ensuring accountability and transparency throughout the entire process.

Despite the diplomatic progress, hostilities have persisted on the ground, underscoring the fragility of the current situation. Gaza’s health authorities reported that Israeli airstrikes on Thursday killed at least four people, including two children, even as negotiations advanced. The humanitarian situation in Gaza remains dire, with widespread displacement, acute food insecurity, and a collapsing healthcare system that has left thousands without access to basic medical care. The success of the agreement hinges not only on political will from all parties but also on tangible, on-the-ground improvements in the daily lives of Palestinian civilians, many of whom have been displaced multiple times since the conflict began.

The focus now shifts from negotiation to implementation, with the Board of Peace confirming in a post on X (formerly Twitter) that the NCAG will “soon begin a phased transition toward full authority.” Key milestones to watch include Israel’s official response to the proposal, which could shape the entire trajectory of the deal; the actual start of the weapons handover process; the deployment of an International Stabilization Force to work alongside a new Palestinian police force; and meaningful progress on humanitarian aid and reconstruction efforts that could help stabilize the region. Each of these steps carries significant weight and will be closely monitored by the international community.

This agreement represents a rare moment of compromise in a conflict marked by decades of violence and deep-seated mistrust. However, the path forward is fraught with challenges, and the “zero trust” approach reflects the profound suspicions that persist on both sides. Any misstep, whether a delay in weapons handover or a disagreement over troop withdrawal, could unravel the entire framework and plunge the region back into conflict. For now, the world watches and waits, with hopes pinned on a process that remains as fragile as it is historic. As Mladenov aptly put it, “What happens next matters even more. Implementation and verification have to be real.”