In a recent interview with The New Yorker, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky took a strong stance against Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance, calling him ‘too radical’ for his views on the ongoing war in Ukraine.
Zelensky expressed deep concern over Vance’s suggestion that Ukraine should make concessions, including ceding territory, to bring the conflict to an end. He firmly rejected this notion, stating, “The idea that the world should end this war at Ukraine’s expense is unacceptable.” He also pointed to Vance’s past proposals for Ukraine to surrender territory to Russia as a way to stop the war, arguing that such a plan would be disastrous. “I don’t take Vance’s words seriously, because, if this were a plan, then America is headed for global conflict. It will involve Israel, Lebanon, Iran, Taiwan, China, as well as many African countries.”
Zelensky responded to Vance’s views by urging the senator to study the history of World War II, highlighting the perils of appeasement. He stated, “Let Mr. Vance read up on the history of the Second World War, when a country was forced to give part of its territory to one particular person. What did that man do? Was he appeased or did he deal a devastating blow to the continent of Europe—to many nations, broadly, and to the Jewish nation in particular? Let him do some reading.”
This criticism from Zelensky comes amidst a tense geopolitical situation. In July 2024, Zelensky called on former U.S. President Donald Trump to reveal his plan for a swift end to the Russia-Ukraine war, emphasizing that any plan must respect Ukraine’s sovereignty. That same month, NATO announced a series of measures, including a $40 billion annual pledge of military support to Ukraine, to safeguard Ukraine’s potential future NATO membership and counter the impact of a potential return of Trump. In a presidential debate in September 2024, Vice President Kamala Harris criticized Trump for his stance on Ukraine and his ‘friendship’ with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin.
Zelensky’s sharp criticism of Vance underscores the deep divisions and complexities of the Ukraine conflict. It also highlights the critical role of the United States in shaping the global response to the war.
