Could Zelensky be Ukraine's Geo. Washington?

Charmonium

Diamond Member
May 15, 2015
9,967
3,162
136
Once Ukraine is free, it's going to be hard to ignore the parallels. We were both prophesied to be losers - Davie v. Goliath (oblique reference to old Xtian cartoon). Only in our case, the certainty of victory was much, much longer in coming. Let's face it, for Ukraine, after the first few days, it quickly became obvious that, if properly armed, Ukraine was the odds on fave.

Moved from OT.
admin allisolm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: pcgeek11

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Washington? absolutely not. There just aren't any logical parallels between the two wrg to their roles, skills, and connection to their nations' historical timeline.

A slightly-lower-level Havel? maybe....

Even their underdog status isn't really comparable: the Russians are an actual shit-tier army from the beginning and that isn't in any real doubt. The British were never outclassed when it came to technology, training, professionalism, and all of that. They were legitimately the top dogs of that time (except maybe still the Spanish?).

The Continental Army had to "do a lot of cheating" to beat them. (from the British perspective, anyway, haha)
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,952
8,002
136
Washington was a military man.
He is praised for not using his military victory to claim and remain in power.
There is no comparison to Ukraine today.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,971
13,488
136
I think the immediate parallel is Churchill, but anything is going to be imperfect.
Agreed, I am thinking Churchill as well, but its not really fair, while Zelensky did hold the highest office when this began, he was also "just" a comedian. I think its fair to say the guy has levelled up 20-30 times over the last year. Rising to the occasion is an understatement of magnitude. The best part is, in terms of leadership qualities he has outshined Putin on every conceivable metric.
 

Charmonium

Diamond Member
May 15, 2015
9,967
3,162
136
There wasn't any point I was trying to make which is why I didn't put this in P&N to start with. But no objects. I suppose it's something that hews close to the line.

All I wanted to say is this - to the extent that we lionize if not deify people like GW, Lincoln, etc., I can't help but see something similar happening to VZ in the next 50 to 100 years.

And the reason for wanting to stress that is this - imagine you're immortal and were around in GW's time. You would have recognized his importance in winning the war, but in modern world, we have gone so far beyond that - statues, monuments, memorials and tributes almost beyond measure. I think that's the future VZ can anticipate for himself although Ukr society probably won't pull out the 'big guns' until he's died of old age.
 

Tsinni Dave

Senior member
Mar 1, 2022
559
1,378
106
Not only inspiring people but negotiating with virtually every nation at once for aid while successfully keeping his family and himself alive given Russia's history has been an impressive feat. Amazing transformation to wartime leader.
Also Washington had a penchant for buttons, collars and lapels from what I see. Zelensky is more of a sweater guy.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,554
9,905
146
I think he is like Churchill in willing his people to victory. I think he is like Lincoln in being in the right place at the right time at the most pivotal point in his nations history and being perhaps the one human who keep his country together. I think he is like Washington in being the first leader in a new dawn for his polity. I think he may outrank them all.

Comparisons and rankings are reductive in the extreme, but people who like to think in black and white (think Bush the lesser saying, "I don't do nuance") LOVE them. So, here you go, mine:

1. Lincoln
2. Zelensky
3. Churchill
4. Washington

Come at me, bro! :D ;) :D
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Charmonium

Charmonium

Diamond Member
May 15, 2015
9,967
3,162
136
@Perknose - hahahaha "Bush the lesser" - Oh god, I love that sooo much. Now if we can only get the historians to use that.

HW was an excellent administrator but a shitty politician. I'm a little surprised that folks held him to that 'read my lips' bullshit. Oh well. I'm barely a functional human so what the fvck do I know.

edit: I don't think BTL (come on, you know what that stands for) was born an idiot, it was the cocaine. It's a helluva drug that just loves gobbling neurons. You sort of have to be grateful that Cheney was around to tell him what to do. Well, up to a point. He (i.e., BTL) was definitely the one who was responsible for the second Iraq war though. He really had a whole hive of killer bees up his ass for Saddam.

edit2: For many years after my bout with EEE (eastern equine encephalitis), if I turned my head from side to side quickly I could feel my brain ratting back and forth. Let me tell you, that is a very strange if not nauseating feeling. I wonder if BTL has that problem.
 
Last edited:

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,363
8,675
136
Washington? absolutely not. There just aren't any logical parallels between the two wrg to their roles, skills, and connection to their nations' historical timeline.

A slightly-lower-level Havel? maybe....

Even their underdog status isn't really comparable: the Russians are an actual shit-tier army from the beginning and that isn't in any real doubt. The British were never outclassed when it came to technology, training, professionalism, and all of that. They were legitimately the top dogs of that time (except maybe still the Spanish?).

The Continental Army had to "do a lot of cheating" to beat them. (from the British perspective, anyway, haha)
Yeah, Washington was not an entertainer turned politician by virtue of him playing the role in a movie before actually getting elected. Zelensky's trajectory is unique. Washington was a general. Don't get me wrong, both stellar, but very different and their situations very different.
 

rommelrommel

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2002
4,409
3,183
146
Washington’s great credit was establishing the country AND retiring when the people of the time would have allowed him to become a quasi-king. I see very few parallels. Zelinsky may or may not have strategic acumen but I personally think he’s more of a trust his surrounding staff guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roger Wilco

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,602
8,508
136
A comparison that is deeply unfair to Zelensky. I see no sign he owns slaves, nor that he's opposed to women having the vote, or that he wants to establish a state designed to exclusively benefit his economic class. Also, I don't think he has wooden false teeth.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
70,165
28,812
136
Washington started a world war.
Churchill started a world war.
Zelensky, nope.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,554
9,905
146
Washington started a world war.
Churchill started a world war.
Zelensky, nope.
Your conception of what constitutes a "world war" (Washington) and who was the actual aggressor who triggered WWII (that would be Adolf) is Fox News level skewed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54 and Muse

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,554
9,905
146
What world war did Churchill start?
He saying, either totally disingenuously or just lazily, that Britain (and France) declared war on Germany after the Nazi's invaded Poland. It's a bullshit statement, a Fox News level "truth."