Success on his opponent's turf: Another take on Zelenskyy's interview with Fridman

Russia’s strategy is intimidation. Trump and Musk are petrified of nuclear war. Ironically, Trump is far more of a coward than old Biden, who’s often accused of lacking guts. That’s why Putin is cranking up the pressure, flexing his nuclear muscles to the max. His strategy to sway Trump is fear. Russia wants to scare the new U.S. president into cutting support for Ukraine, leaving it defenseless.

Ukraine’s strategy is different. We don’t have nukes, and there’s nothing to scare Trump with. So, Zelenskyy’s team made the right decision, in my opinion, to highlight Ukraine’s ability to negotiate. The idea is that, compared to Putin’s blatant incompetence and deceit, Ukraine looks like a more predictable, reliable, and loyal partner. Trump loves that. Especially when you throw in some (read: a lot) of personal flattery.

The interview with Lex Fridman reflects the junior-partner approach, designed to play Trump’s game. Fridman himself is a textbook "good Russian" and a proud patriot of his homeland (Russia). For Zelenskyy, holding his ground on such an unfriendly platform was a real challenge.

Several things stand out in Zelenskyy’s performance with Fridman.

First, Zelenskyy came much better prepared than during earlier interviews with foreign journalists, especially in the early days of his presidency or the full-scale Russian invasion. Back then, almost every interview felt like a disaster, exposing the limited intellectual depth of our leader. This time, while there’s room for criticism, there were no glaring failures. The only thing was his use of profanity — but it seems contrived. Let’s face it, this isn’t the 19th century when saying “butthole” could make a lady faint.

Second, this was entirely Fridman’s turf, yet Ukraine managed to hold its own — and even score some points. Zelenskyy nailed the “guys’ guy” image. Maybe not as witty or relatable to Trump’s voter base, but still closer to 'He fits right in' than not.

A key factor behind this success was Fridman’s relatively sympathetic stance toward Zelenskyy. Whether it was due to prior agreements, political maneuvering by Republicans, or Zelenskyy’s personal merit and the ability to connect with a tough interviewer, Fridman didn’t undermine or attack Zelenskyy during or after the interview. And that’s a win for us.

Of course, plenty of redneck haters will still find fault with the interview. You can’t win over everyone. But overall, I think this was a big step forward for Ukraine among Republicans. We need to keep building on this momentum.

What could have been done better? The Russian émigré Fridman, like a fool, kept obsessively speaking — and talking about — the Russian language both before and during the interview. It seemed like an obsession for him to prove: "We speak the same language, we understand each other." For us, this was extremely damaging because it not only equated the victim with the aggressor but also echoed Putin’s pseudo-historical lies about "one nation." We had no opportunity to challenge this narrative, but Zelenskyy did give a solid answer explaining why he refused to communicate in Russian.

Still, I think a historical analogy with Nazi Germany would have been more fitting here. If I were president, I would’ve told Fridman — who’s a Jew — that speaking Russian to make them “understand” is as absurd as expecting Jews who survived Hitler’s concentration camps to negotiate with Germans in German after the war.

Another missed opportunity: the stupidity of Trump’s far-right fanbase wasn’t leveraged enough. As we know, MAGA die-hards and the most hardcore Republicans love their conspiracy theories. Imagine Zelenskyy lowering his voice and cryptically saying: “Well, you know who’s really behind Putin, don’t you?” 

Their brains would’ve exploded. I guarantee it would’ve triggered a firestorm of theories and months of debate over who’s secretly pulling Putin’s strings — and why everyone in America is staying silent.

Some light conspiracy trolling like that was missing. But, I get it. That would’ve been next-level finesse, and you can’t have high expectations.

To sum up, the president wasn’t perfect, but overall, stepping into enemy territory with a skeptical host was a bold move, and I’m glad the risk paid off. This interview should strengthen our position in Trump’s America.

It seems there’s still a shot at keeping U.S. support under Trump. It won’t be easy, but winning wars like this never is.

Source

About the author: Serhii Marchenko, labor market expert, blogger.

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