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

Trump Bans CNN, MS NOW, Politico From White House Over ‘Fake News’

Published

7 hours ago

September 19, 2026

Trends Admin

United States President Donald Trump

Trump Bans CNN, MS NOW, Politico From White House Over ‘Fake News’

WASHINGTON — United States President Donald Trump has announced restrictions barring CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, accusing the three media organisations of repeatedly publishing what he described as “fake news” about his administration.

Trump announced the decision on Friday, September 18, 2026, in a post on his Truth Social platform, declaring that the restrictions were effective immediately.

The president accused the organisations of reporting what he called “fiction and lies” about him, his administration and the United States, while warning that other media outlets could also face similar restrictions.

The announcement has opened another confrontation between the Trump administration and the American media, with press-freedom advocates and journalists raising questions about the constitutional limits of presidential control over access to the White House.

The dispute also escalated on Saturday after journalists working for MS NOW were denied entry to the White House grounds, providing the clearest indication that the administration had begun enforcing at least part of Trump’s announced restrictions.

Trump, speaking to reporters in the Oval Office after making the announcement, defended the decision and said the three organisations had engaged in what he regarded as deliberately negative coverage of his administration.

“They’re fake news,” Trump said when asked about the decision, adding that other media organisations could also be affected if they continued with what he described as unfair reporting.

Trump did not identify a single report that prompted the action. Instead, he pointed to what he characterised as the organisations’ overall coverage of his presidency.

He also criticised other major American news organisations, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, suggesting that additional outlets could face restrictions.

However, no ban on either newspaper was immediately announced.

The White House action initially created uncertainty because journalists from the three targeted organisations remained on the White House grounds after Trump’s announcement on Friday.

READ ALSO:

CNN journalists were still working from the network’s White House workspace, while CNN also had personnel involved in the television pool covering Vice President JD Vance.

The situation changed on Saturday when MS NOW journalists were denied access to the White House grounds.

The development raised fresh questions about whether the administration intended to apply the restrictions to physical access, press credentials, White House workspaces, presidential events and media pools, or all forms of coverage from the presidential complex.

It was not immediately clear whether CNN journalists had also been denied entry on Saturday, while Politico journalists are generally not based at the White House during weekends.

Trump was spending the weekend at Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland.

The president’s action has drawn a strong response from the affected organisations.

CNN rejected the move and said it stood behind its White House reporting team. The network maintained that journalists should be able to report from the White House without government interference and indicated that it would challenge any formal restriction that violated its constitutional protections.

Politico also rejected the president’s allegations and said it would continue covering the Trump administration and future administrations.

The organisation said it would defend its First Amendment rights against attempts to restrict its access to government officials and presidential activities.

MS NOW also condemned the restriction after its journalists were denied entry, saying it would pursue available measures to protect its constitutional rights and the public’s access to information about government activities.

The White House Correspondents’ Association also criticised the administration’s decision.

The association argued that freedom of the press should not depend on whether a president agrees with the coverage produced by a particular news organisation or approves of questions asked by its journalists.

The controversy has also attracted the attention of major press-freedom organisations, which have warned that excluding news organisations because of dissatisfaction with their reporting could raise serious constitutional questions.

The First Amendment protects freedom of the press in the United States, although the government also has authority to regulate access to secure government facilities.

The central legal question is therefore likely to concern whether the White House can selectively exclude particular news organisations because the administration objects to their reporting or perceived editorial position.

The latest dispute follows an earlier confrontation between the Trump administration and the Associated Press over White House access.

In 2025, the White House restricted AP journalists from certain presidential events after the news organisation declined to adopt Trump’s preferred name, “Gulf of America”, for the body of water traditionally known as the Gulf of Mexico.

The AP challenged the restrictions in court, turning the dispute into a wider legal battle over presidential control of press access.

Trump has also had a previous major confrontation with CNN over White House access.

During his first presidency, the White House revoked CNN correspondent Jim Acosta’s press credentials following a contentious exchange between Acosta and Trump at a November 2018 press conference.

CNN challenged the decision in court, and a federal judge temporarily ordered the restoration of Acosta’s access. The White House later restored his credentials permanently.

The latest dispute is therefore occurring against the background of several years of tension between Trump and major American news organisations.

Trump has repeatedly criticised media outlets whose reporting he considers unfair or inaccurate, while journalists and press-freedom groups have argued that government officials should not determine access to the presidency according to whether they approve of news coverage.

Another issue raised by Trump’s latest announcement is the absence of specific reports identified by the president as the basis for the restrictions.

Rather than pointing to one article or broadcast, Trump referred broadly to what he described as the organisations’ continued publication of negative and false reports.

The president also raised the issue of government spending on Politico subscriptions while defending his decision.

Politico has rejected suggestions that its government subscriptions amounted to improper financial support, arguing that such claims were misleading.

Trump’s warning that other media organisations could also be targeted has added another dimension to the dispute.

The president has suggested that additional outlets could be excluded from the White House if he believes they continue to engage in what he considers unfair reporting.

That possibility has heightened concerns among journalists about the future of White House press access and whether the administration could establish different levels of access for media organisations based on their editorial coverage.

The immediate focus, however, is on how the restrictions against CNN, MS NOW and Politico will be implemented.

Questions remain over whether the administration will issue formal rules covering press credentials, presidential events, White House workspaces and press pools.

The organisations affected have indicated that they intend to continue covering the Trump administration and defend their rights to do so.

The confrontation could consequently develop into another major legal battle over the relationship between the White House and the American press, with the outcome potentially affecting how journalists gain access to the presidency.

For now, the denial of entry to MS NOW journalists represents a significant development from Friday’s announcement, when the precise scope of the proposed ban remained unclear.

The unfolding dispute places White House press access, media freedom and First Amendment protections at the centre of another major confrontation between President Trump and the American news media.

Trump Bans CNN, MS NOW, Politico From White House Over ‘Fake News’

International

Asian Games Organisers Apologise After Blunder Broadcasts North Korean Anthem for South Korea

Published

1 day ago

September 18, 2026

Hamdalat Bisiriyu

Asian Games Organisers Apologise After Blunder Broadcasts North Korean Anthem for South Korea

A mistaken stadium audio track following South Korea’s 5-0 hockey win over Bangladesh triggers protests amid wider logistical issues in Japan.

Organisers of the Asian Games in Japan issued a formal apology on Friday after mistakenly playing the North Korean national anthem for South Korea’s men’s hockey team.

The embarrassing mix-up occurred shortly after South Korea secured a commanding 5-0 victory over Bangladesh, leaving players standing perplexed on the pitch as the wrong national anthem echoed through the stadium speakers.

Following the initial blunder, venue operators played the national anthem of Bangladesh before finally broadcasting South Korea’s proper anthem, prompting a stadium announcer to issue an immediate apology over the public address system.

However, South Korea coach Min Tae-seok condemned the oversight as an inexcusable operational failure. Min stated that while tournament officials blamed an individual operator for selecting the wrong audio file, an international competition must never tolerate errors of such sensitive political magnitude.

Furthermore, the anthem blunder compounds wider operational difficulties facing Japanese host venues ahead of Saturday’s official opening ceremony. Several delegations have voiced strong frustration over logistical arrangements, with visiting teams reporting airport delays lasting up to six hours.

In addition, members of South Korea’s basketball squad published videos showing water pouring from broken pipes into their athlete village rooms, intensifying pressure on local organisers to resolve village infrastructure and technical coordination before mainstream competitions begin.

Asian Games Organisers Apologise After Blunder Broadcasts North Korean Anthem for South Korea

International

BREAKING: Bloodbath at Pakistan Mosque as Suicide Blast Kills 21, Injures 103

Published

1 day ago

September 18, 2026

Trends Admin

BREAKING: Bloodbath at Pakistan Mosque as Suicide Blast Kills 21, Injures 103

KOHAT, Pakistan — Friday prayers turned into a scene of horror in Pakistan on Friday as a powerful suicide attack ripped through a mosque inside a police compound in Kohat, leaving at least 21 people dead and 103 others injured.

The devastating attack, which struck the Old Police Lines in Kohat, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, claimed the lives of 15 police personnel and six civilians, while 73 policemen and 30 civilians were injured, according to health officials.

The attack occurred at about 1:20pm local time, when worshippers had gathered for the weekly Friday prayers at the mosque located inside the heavily guarded Police Lines compound.

Eyewitness accounts and initial reports described scenes of panic as a massive explosion tore through the facility, sending debris flying and trapping victims beneath damaged sections of the mosque and surrounding buildings.

According to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Inspector-General of Police Zulfiqar Hamid, an explosives-laden vehicle was rammed into the gate of the old Police Lines before detonating, unleashing the devastating blast.

The explosion caused extensive damage to the police facility and mosque, with parts of the structure collapsing as worshippers and police officers were caught in the blast.

But the nightmare did not end with the explosion.

As rescue workers rushed to evacuate the wounded, gunfire erupted inside the compound after armed militants reportedly attempted to force their way deeper into the police facility.

A further suicide explosion was also reported near the Special Branch building during the ensuing confrontation between the attackers and security forces.

READ ALSO:

Police said seven armed attackers had entered the compound following the initial assault, triggering a fierce firefight involving police and Counter-Terrorism Department personnel.

Security forces eventually killed the attackers, including a suicide bomber and a sniper, as they battled to regain control of the compound.

The scale of the casualties overwhelmed medical facilities in Kohat, forcing the District Headquarters Hospital to declare an emergency.

Ambulances raced to the scene as doctors and medical workers treated scores of victims suffering blast injuries, gunshot wounds and injuries caused by collapsing structures.

Health authorities put the number of injured at 103, with 73 police personnel and 30 civilians among those receiving treatment.

Some of the wounded were reportedly in critical condition, while rescue teams continued searching the damaged compound for possible survivors trapped under debris.

The heavy police casualties were attributed to the location and timing of the attack, with officers among those gathered inside the mosque for Friday prayers.

Among those reportedly killed were SP Traffic Akbar Shinwari and Dr Israel Orakzai, head of the children’s department at DHQ KDA Kohat, according to Pakistani media reports.

Security forces subsequently cordoned off the area and restricted movement around the Police Lines as investigators began examining the scene and searching for explosives or possible accomplices.

The Kohat-Hangu Road was also closed temporarily as security and rescue operations continued.

The attack triggered widespread outrage across Pakistan, with President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif condemning the bombing and mourning the victims.

Sharif directed authorities to ensure that the injured received immediate and adequate medical treatment while security agencies were ordered to investigate the attack.

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Sohail Afridi also condemned the assault and directed officials to mobilise available resources for the treatment of the wounded.

Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi expressed solidarity with the families of those killed and injured, as condemnation poured in from within and outside Pakistan.

Countries including Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, Russia, Poland, Australia and Jordan also condemned the attack and expressed sympathy with the victims and their families.

The Kohat bombing comes against the backdrop of an escalating militant threat in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, one of Pakistan’s most violence-prone regions.

The province, which shares a border with Afghanistan, has witnessed repeated attacks targeting police, soldiers and civilians.

The latest bloodshed also came shortly after a roadside bombing in neighbouring Hangu district reportedly killed six soldiers, further raising security concerns in the region.

Pakistan has repeatedly accused militants linked to the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) of using hideouts in Afghanistan to launch attacks inside Pakistan. Afghanistan’s Taliban authorities have consistently rejected allegations that they permit their territory to be used for attacks against Pakistan.

Responsibility for the Kohat attack remained disputed in the immediate aftermath.

While later reports attributed a claim to a faction associated with the TTP, other reports said the TTP denied involvement. Security authorities have therefore continued investigations to establish the identity of those behind the attack and determine whether others assisted the attackers.

The deadly incident has also drawn painful memories of the January 2023 Police Lines mosque bombing in Peshawar, in which more than 100 people, mostly police officers, were killed.

For residents of Kohat, Friday’s attack once again turned a place of worship into a battlefield, leaving families searching for loved ones and hospitals struggling to cope with the influx of casualties.

As security agencies combed through the wreckage and investigators worked to establish the circumstances surrounding the assault, the death toll and number of injured remained subject to further updates.

At least 21 people are confirmed dead and 103 injured in the latest official figures, with fears that the casualty figures could change as authorities complete rescue and medical operations.