Neither euphoria nor despair How to survive in the new world

U.S. President Donald Trump has never been particularly complimentary toward Volodymyr Zelenskyy, but what has been happening in recent days is enough to make sparks fly.

Trump stated that the U.S. has spent $200 billion more on supporting Ukraine than Europe, while European countries provide aid under guarantees of repayment, whereas the U.S. is “just giving money away.” He went on to claim that Ukraine had derailed an agreement granting the U.S. access to rare earth metals in exchange for military and financial assistance. According to him, the deal was cancelled by the Ukrainian side two days ago.

Despite the agreement’s collapse, Trump expressed his intention to "resurrect" the deal, emphasizing that without it, "things are gonna not make him [President Volodymyr Zelenskyy] too happy." But that’s just the beginning. In a striking remark, Trump ultimately called Zelenskyy a “modestly successful comedian” and a “dictator without elections,” asserting that he has low ratings in Ukrainian polls.

At first glance, such harsh statements and strong language might suggest a deep personal animosity between former U.S. President Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy. While that is possible, it is more likely that they are intended to push Zelenskyy off the political stage.

It is well known that one of Moscow’s key conditions is Zelenskyy’s removal from power. On the surface, it may seem that Trump is overly willing to accommodate this demand. However, two important nuances must be considered. First, who said negotiations only started just recently? And second, who said this condition would be particularly difficult for Trump to accept?

For nearly a year, Vladimir Putin has made it clear that he will not sign any agreements with Zelenskyy—a stance he reaffirmed just weeks ago. It is reasonable to assume that Moscow and Washington discussed this matter as soon as Trump returned to the White House and that a mutual understanding was reached in advance of the delegation meetings.

Moreover, one could assume that the main issue is not Zelenskyy himself—there has long been agreement on his departure—but rather who will succeed him as president. This is where significant disputes and even a power struggle may arise, as both sides will seek to install their preferred candidate in Kyiv using their respective leverage.

However, let’s not delve too deeply into this just yet. What is crucial to acknowledge now is that the redistribution of power in Ukraine has moved into a practical phase—unless, of course, a miracle happens, including a shift in Kyiv’s strategy. Once again, whether one likes it or not, it becomes evident how crucial it is to choose the right strategy.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy is a tragic figure not because he is an actor, but because he failed to play the defining role of his life. Who says a politician shouldn’t be an actor? Isn’t language given to diplomats (and politicians) precisely to conceal their true thoughts? Yet Zelenskyy pursued his policies with excessive straightforwardness, justifying it as a necessity of the moment. He crafted the image of a leader defending his nation. But that image has withered under the scorching rays of reality.

Ukraine failed to make the world admire it. The entire world watched as Western military aid was embezzled, general mobilisation was never declared, and during partial mobilisation, corrupt military officials shielded—in wartime—tens of thousands of men from conscription. Meanwhile, the bravest, including tens of thousands of volunteers, risked their lives on the front lines, while many others danced in nightclubs across major cities. The situation was further exacerbated by Ukraine’s lack of independent resources to sustain the war. Eventually, Western financial assistance began covering even the government’s social expenditures.

This reality exposed the fundamental issue—Ukraine was not prepared for war, despite the fact that Russia’s invasion was no surprise and had been considered a plausible scenario in Kyiv for at least eight years. But that is not all: once embroiled in the conflict, Ukraine failed to accurately assess its own strength and find a way out with minimal losses—before the country turned to ruins and nearly a third of its population fled.

Think back to Azerbaijan during the 44-day war. I don’t recall whether there was an official order to close entertainment venues, but I remember with absolute certainty that no one even considered celebrating during that time. Joy and festivity erupted only when President Ilham Aliyev announced the liberation of yet another settlement in Karabakh from Armenian occupation.

I have previously written about how the Azerbaijani army, guided by the strategic vision of its leadership, halted its advance on 9 November 2020. But there was another crucial pause. In May 1994, national leader Heydar Aliyev also brought the war to a halt, redirecting all efforts toward the comprehensive strengthening of the Azerbaijani state. The results of this strategy became evident twenty-six years later, culminating in a decisive victory under Ilham Aliyev—demonstrating that patience is one of the key pillars of strategic thinking.

We state this not to gloat over the mistakes of others. On the contrary, we believe that the brave Ukrainian people, having endured this trial, are bound to undergo renewal. In fact, renewal awaits all nations and societies. Some will enter the new world in triumph, while others will find themselves defeated—but in either case, one must not succumb to either euphoria or despair. Otherwise, survival in this new world will be impossible.