–Analysis–
In November 2023, Ridley Scott’s Napoleon emerged as a significant box-office hit. Joaquin Phoenix’s portrayal of the French emperor stirred both admiration and criticism, with the depiction of this historical figure resonating strongly with a range of audiences worldwide.
In the Western perception of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the focus often narrows to a clash between two figures: Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky. These leaders have become the 21st-century heirs to Napoleon in the realm of media representation.
[shortcode-Subscribe-to-Ukraine-daily-box]
Engaged in a conflict of unprecedented scale in Europe, these two individuals wield immense influence over the lives of millions. Interestingly, both Putin and Zelensky were previously subject to ironic comparisons with Bonaparte. The label of a “Napoleonic complex” has persistently been associated with the Kremlin leader since the 2000s and a photo of Zelensky wearing a tricorn hat, taken 12 years prior to Joaquin Phoenix’s portrayal, remains a popular mocking point among his detractors.
However, delving deeper, there are real parallels between the Russian and Ukrainian leaders and the legendary French emperor. Like Napoleon, both Putin and Zelensky genuinely believe in their historical missions. They consider themselves chosen by fate for significant purposes, albeit with distinct perspectives.
Domination v. idealism
Vladimir Putin’s sense of mission is founded on power. For the Kremlin leader, the supremacy of the strong is the ultimate law and the primary tool in international relations. According to Putin, Russia, as the powerful entity, should dominate not only the post-Soviet sphere but also beyond it. He believes in Russia’s right to obliterate cities, annex territories, and subjugate ostensibly independent nations.
Putin interprets any attempts to integrate Russia into the global order as a sign of the West’s belief in Russian weakness. His mission revolves around demonstrating Russia’s strength to the world, rejecting any constraints imposed by international norms.
Volodymyr Zelensky’s sense of messianism, however, centers on a belief in justice. Despite intense criticism from staunch opponents, he holds a firm belief in distinguishing between good and evil, a principle that holds significant weight for him.
As an outsider, Zelensky managed to retain a sense of idealism uncommon among seasoned politicians entrenched in a jaded and cynical environment for years.
His idealistic outlook heavily influenced his approach to the ongoing conflict.
Zelensky abhors the notion of his country facing defeat.
Before Feb. 24, 2022, the idealist in Zelensky struggled to fathom the possibility of a full-scale invasion by the Russia. The brazen and overt disregard for norms and rules by evil forces seemed implausible in the 21st century.
However, post-Feb. 24, 2022, the idealist Zelensky found it easier to believe in triumphing over the aggressor. The sheer audacity of such blatant evil made him confident that it couldn’t prevail without consequence.
From the onset of the invasion, Zelensky began seeing himself as fated to restore justice and ensure good triumphed over evil. This belief in his mission has provided substantial support to the Ukrainian president throughout the war.
Zelensky adeptly assumed the role of a wartime leader, shining on the global stage with persistent and effective actions. He managed to inspire Western audiences with his idealism, serving as a moral compass and momentarily sidelining the cynical advocates of realpolitik.
But presidential messianism has its challenges. When Zelensky’s ideals clash with harsh realities, accepting unpleasant facts becomes an arduous task for the head of state. Setbacks on the battlefield, waning Western support, and exhaustion from Ukraine’s plight are hard for him to acknowledge.
Zelensky abhors the notion of his country facing defeat. For him, losing the war signifies more than just a decline in personal popularity; it shatters his worldview, where evil must be punished and justice must prevail.
Recent articles in Western media, such as the controversial TIME piece on Zelensky’s perceived “lonely struggle” or the Politico article naming Zelensky the “dreamer of the year,” have focused on his unwavering belief in his mission and the stark contrast between his idealism and the harsh realities he faces. These publications suggest that Zelensky’s messianic fervor might impede reaching a compromise and ending the war, albeit an unjust one.
Is compromise a possibility?
What goes often unacknowledged is that Zelensky isn’t the sole contender for a modern-day Bonaparte who firmly believed in a historical mission.
The root cause of the ongoing conflict wasn’t Zelensky’s messianism but Putin’s, founded on a belief in power. According to Putin’s worldview, the Kremlin’s entitlement doesn’t stop at sections of Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions but extends to the entirety of Ukraine.
The very idea of peace is challenging for Putin.
For Putin, accepting a compromise and relinquishing full control over Ukraine signifies an admission of weakness. After 23 years of authoritarian rule, acknowledging one’s weakness is akin to admitting a life lived in vain.
It signifies not dying as a victor but as a loser who succumbed in adverse circumstances. Napoleon Bonaparte, content with the title of Emperor of Elba without seeking retribution, could have similarly met his end.
As of now, neither Zelensky nor Putin is content with an unjust peace between Ukraine and Russia. While the term “unfair” is unacceptable for Zelensky regarding peace, the very idea of peace is challenging for Putin. It would be naive for the West to expect that by undermining Zelensky’s faith in his mission, they could effectively address Putin’s messianic ambitions.
