Punchbowl reports, and Axios confirms, that Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky is planning to travel to Washington, D.C., to meet with President Biden and possibly address Congress, perhaps as soon as Wednesday. This would be Zelensky’s first time out of Ukraine since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine began.
Throughout that invasion, I have supported the Ukrainian cause and Zelensky’s service on its behalf, while abhorring Russia’s cruelty and Vladimir Putin’s perfidy. I continue to do so; while neither Ukraine nor Zelensky is perfect, criticisms of either often seem hyperbolic, selective, or otherwise misleading, and at any rate in no way add up to a kind of moral equivalence of Ukraine with Russia. Indeed, as both Rich Lowry and Chris DeMuth have argued, there is a strongly nationalist case for being invested in Ukraine’s success. Moreover, I find the arguments that it is in America’s interest for Ukraine to prevail persuasive, even as I recognize that, while Ukraine’s interests and America’s overlap considerably here, they are not identical.
That is a matter for another time, however. For now, it is worth asking: Is it in Zelensky’s interest for him to come to the United States? I think not. A physical appearance in this country, as the war is ongoing and as military-age males in Ukraine are generally forbidden from leaving Ukraine, is different in kind from videoconferencing in to awards ceremonies and even to Congress itself, as Zelensky has done in the past. A former comedian and television star, he understands the power of such things well. He also has discerned where the loci of elite opinion in the West are, and has shown a canny ability to appeal to them in a way that can sometimes seem a bit cloying to those for whom Ukraine’s invasion is not a frightening reality but that is essential for a leader who fears not simply the loss of Western support but also of Western attention. It would also be different in kind from hosting visits from other leaders, including American ones, in Ukraine, which is appropriate.
Zelensky’s leaving his country would not detract from the reality of his commitment to it, or of his wartime feats. But optically, it would risk validating criticisms that his detractors, in this country and abroad, have made from the start of the conflict. The arguments that he could better advocate his country’s interests by being in ours are outweighed by the reputational and strategic risks of a visit. Russian propagandists have tried to pretend that Zelensky has left Ukraine on certain occasions, when in fact he has not done so. And when Russia’s invasion began, the Biden administration offered him an exit from the country, which he declined.
Other considerations should also factor in. While the war effort itself will almost certainly survive a brief departure, and while the U.S. should almost certainly be able to assure Zelensky’s security, why leave anything to chance? Moreover, New York Times reporting suggests that Zelensky’s visit “would also put Republicans on Capitol Hill opposed” to further Ukraine aid “in the potentially uncomfortable position of opposing the aid even as the Ukrainian leader appears on Capitol Hill.” Perhaps. It might also subject Zelensky and the Ukrainian cause to even more domestic culture-war squabbling than has already been the case, further deteriorating their support here.
It would serve Zelensky’s interests, and Ukraine’s, while continuing to confound his detractors, for him to remain in the country he leads. For other needs, he can make do with Zoom.