Putin’s selective diplomacy: first anyone but Poroshenko, now anyone but Zelenskyy

He spoke about two sides, each of which must make concessions to achieve peace. He blamed everything on Biden, who supposedly deceived Ukrainians. I get it—on TV, Republicans are still fighting Democrats, and in this sense, Ukraine’s war with Moscow becomes just another tool in their internal political games. I watched the original video and understand English well.

About both sides and their guilt: If you were robbed, you’re equally responsible for the robbery. The robber gives back half, or maybe just 10%, and the issue is considered resolved. He can then enjoy the rest while drinking vodka to the tune of Vladimirskiy Central. If you were murdered, resolving the issue is a bit harder. But once again, you’re still somehow responsible for the murder, and people with sensitive psyches don’t like to hear that.

"The murdered person won’t file a lawsuit. And if no one else does on their behalf, the issue can be closed—just like they did in the 1930s with the Holodomor."

The host asks: Who is the bigger obstacle to peace—Putin or Zelenskyy? The question itself is deliberately foolish. War isn’t just a fight between two individuals. Just as a million little Putins aren’t shooting at us from the Russian side, we don’t have a million little Zelenskyys fighting on our side. War has structural causes that only partially depend on individual personalities.

In 2019, we were told that Putin would negotiate with any Ukrainian president except Poroshenko. Yet back in 2014, Poroshenko also hoped to end the war quickly.

Fine, here’s Zelenskyy. But even Zelenskyy eventually realized he was being deceived—though with a delay. The view from the president’s office on Bankova Street is quite different from a film set. Now, in 2025, Putin supposedly wants to talk to anyone except Zelenskyy. So between the two of them, which one seems more stubborn? Bring someone else to the negotiating table.

And did Biden really deceive us? The escalation control policy worked. If Ukraine had received no aid at all, that would have been our strategic defeat. If Ukraine had received approximately the same amount of aid, but faster and without public announcements about when it would arrive and how far it could shoot, then by 2023, the Russian front might have collapsed.

But let’s consider that Biden was the U.S. president, and someone conveniently whispered in his ear—perhaps to the tune of a balalaika—that this particular strategy best served American interests. Because the Kremlin has nuclear weapons… And that’s how we ended up in this very stalemate.

Source

About the author: Viktor Pushkar, social psychologist.

The editorial team does not always share the views expressed by blog authors.