Zelensky’s trip to the US leaves some unanswered questions

Both the fact and the fiction could be harder to maintain now, writes Mary Dejevsky

It remains to be seen whether Zelensky will receive all he came to Washington for (AFP via Getty)

I need ammunition, not a ride,” is how Ukraine’s president is said to have responded when the United States offered to evacuate him after Russia invaded his country. Ten months on, he accepted Washington’s renewed invitation, although in very different circumstances, and with a return, rather than a one-way, ticket.

That Volodymyr Zelensky, now a hardened and admired national war leader, decided to make his first known trip out of war-torn Ukraine now, and to make it to the seat of US power, conveyed many messages – some implicit, some spelt out in what Zelensky said – but it leaves some unanswered questions, too.

For a start, the visit was a huge statement of confidence, both in his own position and in the prospects for his country. This was not just a hop over the Polish border, or a day trip to London, but a long-haul journey across the Atlantic. There is no way that Zelensky would have left Ukraine for the best part of two days had he not believed that he would be safe to leave and return, and that his government and his country would be safe, too.

That confidence had to be shared by Joe Biden, and by the whole of the US administration, as Zelensky’s host and Ukraine’s ally. The US must have been certain it could guarantee the security of such a trip, against hostile actions by Russia if nothing else.

I wouldn’t mind betting that at least the flight arrangements were notified in advance to Russia, to avoid “accidents” – like, say, the disaster that struck Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over contested Ukrainian territory in 2014. The whole enterprise, it has to be said, was – and may have been deliberately intended as – one in the eye for the Kremlin.

From the moment his plane touched down in Washington to the moment he left, Zelensky was feted as the international hero he has become, and as an honoured friend of the United States. All the institutions of power craved shafts from his reflected glory.

He enjoyed a fireside chat and a joint press conference with President Biden, as well as a slew of personal meetings with Washington’s movers and shakers. His speech to a joint session of the two Houses of Congress – delivered with a wartime ruggedness and determination in heavily accented English – was cheered to the rafters, with standing ovations every other minute, much like a president’s State of the Union address.

Commentators compared his reception to the welcome Winston Churchill was accorded during the Second World War. It was a parallel somewhat complicated by Zelensky’s own comparison, during his speech, of Ukraine’s war against Russia with the American War of Independence. But that is by the by.

Zelensky’s message was in significant ways – and no doubt consciously – a reprise of Churchill’s about Britain: Ukraine fights alone, but it does not fight only for itself; it is defending a far greater cause. US taxpayers’ money, he said in a key passage, “is not charity, it’s an investment in the global security and democracy, that we handle in the most responsible way”.

We don’t need your troops, he clarified; but to fight on, Ukraine does need more, and more sophisticated, weapons. Zelensky is a master of performance. He knows, or takes advice on, all the right buttons to press. He gave the White House and US legislators all they could possibly have wanted to justify continued and increased aid.

Clearly aware of criticism in the US to the effect that he is more proficient in the asking than in his appreciation, he peppered his statements with profuse thanks. Only a very few dissenters remained seated during the standing ovations, reflecting their view that fighting Russia, albeit by proxy, is a risk too far, and that the economic and political cost of supporting the war outweighs any benefits the US might gain.

A minority (and a largely silent minority) these dissenters may be, but it remains to be seen whether Zelensky will receive all he came to Washington for. Because, while his visit undoubtedly reflected high confidence in the Kyiv camp – and as such was a show of strength – his decision to risk a Washington trip in person, rather than booking a new slot on Zoom, could also be a sign of weakness. After all, once that card has been played, it has been played.

Zelensky may have succeeded in reinvigorating support in some quarters with his star power, but the mood more widely in the US seems less unanimous than it once was. Influential voices including General Mike Milley, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the elder statesman Henry Kissinger, have called for talks, as did – briefly – a group of Democrats in the US Congress before the midterm elections.

The US has been by far the most generous supplier of weapons and financial aid, and will now supply Ukraine with Patriot air-defence missiles – reversing a previous refusal. They are included in a new $2bn (£1.66bn) aid package announced by the White House. In his speech to Congress, however, Zelensky strongly suggested that even this would not be enough.

Any pluses from the Ukrainian president’s flying visit to Washington, of course, do not flow just one way. Hosting Zelensky has benefits for Biden, too. Sharing a stage with the current hero of the Western world will enhance his political standing in some quarters, and could even, perhaps, help to distract attention from questions about his son’s former business dealings in Ukraine (as per evidence on his discarded laptop that could be investigated by the new Congress).

As a displacement activity, good news brought by Zelensky from Ukraine is good news for Biden, too. But there is another constituency that may have views on Zelensky’s visit to Washington, and this is where the questions begin. What about the Ukrainians who have been fighting on the front lines and suffering the exigencies of the war? How will they judge his decision to leave the country, albeit for the United States and for little more than a day?

With hindsight, Zelensky’s visit on the eve of his trip to rally the troops fighting on the currently most contested front, outside Bakhmut in eastern Ukraine, can be seen as a pre-emptive move, allowing him to show his care (and his readiness to risk his life) for the home front, too.

Another concern might be the risk that it could provoke Moscow into some high-profile and destructive expression of its disapproval. How to judge whether the trip was worth the risk? But it is the adulation Zelensky received in Washington that could, paradoxically, pose the biggest question of all – and if not now, then in the longer term.

For all that Ukraine has relied to a large extent on foreign weapons and financial aid to fight its war, Ukraine and its president have been seen – at least until now – as controlling their own destiny. “No decision about Ukraine without Ukraine” is the principle applied to any potential diplomatic talks.

The barest suggestion that this foreign assistance, especially the large quantities sent by the United States, comes with any element of leverage has been roundly dismissed. Both the fact and the fiction could be harder to maintain now. Zelensky’s rapturous reception in Washington, and his succession of meetings at the highest level, will communicate a degree of closeness – even dependence – that could be difficult to dispel.

What might the consequences be if Ukraine’s commander-in-chief is perceived as being in Washington’s pocket? Might not some start to ask whether Ukraine is not in danger of merely exchanging one liege lord for another? Might not some in Ukraine start to ask whose war they are fighting – and might not some of Ukraine’s European supporters venture similar questions?

President Zelensky’s flying visit to Washington may have handed out presents to everyone now, but it could be storing up complications for seasons to come.