Vladimir Zelensky was not mistaken

Since the beginning of the war between Ukraine and the Russian Federation, in our information field one can notice a large number of analyzes and statements of authoritative people about the erroneous policy of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky. The Acting President of Azerbaijan in the 1990s Y. Mammadov joined this choir. The authors of such statements believe that Zelensky should play for time, or agree with the Russian Federation and thereby avoid war. As an alternative, they cite our policy towards Moscow. But this thesis is erroneous and we will try to prove it.

First, we failed to solve the  Nagorno Karabakh problem without war. It's just that the enemy was weaker, so the scale of the war and the damage from it is incomparable with Ukraine's.

Secondly, it should be taken into account that the significance of Ukraine and our region, their impact on the domestic and foreign policy of the Russian Federation are not comparable.

The status quo did not suit Moscow. With each passing day, Ukraine became more and more separated from the Russian Federation and approached the West. A democratic, prosperous Ukraine could change the balance of power in the internal political field of the Russian Federation not in favor of the authorities. Time played against the Kremlin. Therefore, the Kremlin has tightened its rhetoric both with the West and with Kiev.

Zelensky had to make a chioce: either he goes along with the Russian reading of the Minsk agreements and refuses to integrate with the West, or he gets a war. The Russian interpretation of the Minsk agreements envisaged the federalization of Ukraine and the legitimization of Pushilin, the leader of the separatist regime in Donetsk. This would be tantamount to our recognition and cooperation with Artunyan's office in Khankendi. Naturally, Kiev could not agree to this. It is clear that refusing the Russian interpretation of the Minsk agreements, Zelensky also took into account the mood of the electorate, which was against these agreements. This was also confirmed during the hostilities. No one is holding protests against Zelensky's "failed policy”; however, citizens are holding rallies in the occupied settlements demanding the withdrawal of the occupying troops. If the population would consider Zelensky's policy erroneous, then they could easily change him to a person loyal to Moscow and agree on peace. Ukraine has experience in replacing a president who runs counter to the interests of the people. But the opposite happened. Even Medvedchuk and other pro-Russian politicians, having seen the attitude of people to Russian aggression, were forced to either flee Ukraine or go into the shadows. Hence the conclusion - Zelensky's policy is a consolidated position of Ukrainian society. By the way, this is confirmed by recent opinion polls.

At the moment,  90% of respondents support Zelensky, and 80% of survey participants believe that they will win this war.

In the end, I would like to consider this war from the perspective of the struggle between democracy and authoritarianism. Here we are witnessing a great self-organization of a democratic society in the struggle for their freedoms. Democracy begins with the collective solution of its quarterly problems and then ascends to national and state issues. Therefore, Ukraine so easily and quickly switched to military footing. Not a single major leader was fired. All the mayors of large cities were able to switch to a military footing and successfully manage their cities. There were no resignations among the senior command staff. That is, the selection of personnel used in democratic societies has proved its superiority over the authoritarian machine. The video footage shows the confidence and psychological advantage of the free soldiers of Ukraine over the chained and gloomy soldiers of the Russian Federation. The Russian side is also inferior in the conduct of hostilities. Even non-specialists can see errors in planning this operation. The capabilities of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the attitude of Ukrainians to the war were incorrectly assessed. One can clearly see the poor coordination of military units, the backlog of logistics from the advanced forces, and the poor work of intelligence. To date, not a single large city has been captured, which indicates the general weakness of the Russian Armed Forces. On video frames, we observe old types of weapons, equipment and untrained personnel. The publicized reform of the army turned out to be an empty phrase. Yes, and it could not be otherwise in an authoritarian, corrupt and kleptocratic country, where high positions are appointed only on the basis of personal loyalty, neglecting professional qualities.

And this is historically natural. In the First World War, all the victorious countries of the USA, Great Britain, France were democracies. The winners were the Democrats, who defeated the monarchical dictatorship.

Another remarkable feature of this war is that the world is convinced of the unity of the world democratic community when the struggle for freedom is waged. Without the help of Western countries, Ukraine would not have been able to survive in this unequal struggle. And in those countries where they are skeptical about democracy, they realize that they are making a mistake and will make the right decision.

Shahmar Agabalayev