Vetspective: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is putting it all on the line for democracy – Will we?

Three weeks ago, Russia invaded Ukraine. Since then, we have seen a large-scale, conventional war unfold the likes of which have not been seen since World War II. The specific objectives and endstate that Vladimir Putin has in mind remains murky. But one thing we know for certain: Putin sees NATO – and by extension democracy – as a threat.

Just weeks prior to the invasion – as the United States led a diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Winter Olympics – President Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping stood together at the Olympic opening ceremony. As almost a coming out party ahead of the games – solidifying what has been the directional nature of the Russia-China relationship – Putin and Xi more formally presented their “strategic partnership” – trumpeting their approach to international order as an alternative for the world.

In a joint statement following their “Olympic summit,” Putin and Xi laid out a blueprint for their strategic ambition. Their statement suggested an alternative approach to the global order – one characterized by direct competition with the United States and the West rather than collaboration; one in which democratic principles are a choice rather than a natural right for all; one that condones “might makes right” rather than a rules-based international order; one in which what happens inside of a country such as human rights abuses and the like are the internal affairs of that country rather than subject to universal standards.

Indeed, Putin and Xi envisioned a new global order. But what has emerged following the invasion of Ukraine is not what Putin and Xi had in mind at their “Olympic summit.”

We don’t yet know how the Putin-Xi “strategic partnership” will be operationalized and how far China will go in supporting Putin’s adventurism. China does not want to be viewed as a pariah on the international stage. Accordingly, how far Xi will go in supporting Putin likely will not only be governed by what Putin does but also how vigorously the West stands up to resist Putin’s authoritarian ambitions.

That is why I am heartened to see that, following the invasion of Ukraine, we can see the spirit of the West in ascendance. We also see the resolve in European nations grow because they recognize that the vision and values behind Putin’s war of aggression – changing international, sovereign borders through military force – does not end with Ukraine. It represents a mindset and worldview that threatens European nations beyond.

And even as the West may be unable to stop Putin’s direct challenge to the rules-based, international order through the war in Ukraine in the short run, Putin’s adventurism may well be at such a cost to his military, to his people, to his own narrative of strength that he may actually lose in the long run. But, for Putin to lose in the longer term, he must be seen as losing to the West – not just Ukraine. Otherwise, Putin will – as we are already seeing with his censuring of his security apparatus – frame any loss as a temporary lack of competence by his military and intelligence services rather than a fundamental flaw in the values he espouses and the vision he presents to the world.

Standing in the breach is Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. He is putting it all on the line – not only for his country but also the ideals of democracy – so much so that in the coming days, weeks, or perhaps months, he may well lose it all.

His family. His kids. His life.

This leads me to the following question – would I? Would you? (Would we?)

Would you in the face of the overmatch of an attacking foreign military; would you with no clear commitment from the international community to decisively help protect your country; would you with the knowledge that you’re the number one target; would you put it all on the line?

Your family? Your kids? Your life?

For an idea?

Our founders recognized that the democratic Republic they established was, at its core, an idea. The truly revolutionary part of the American Revolution was the ideal that people could self-govern rather than serve as subjects to a monarch that has absolute, infinite, and infallible power over the entirety of society.

It was certainly a big idea – an idea that clearly continues to be relevant to this day as seen through Putin and Xi’s authoritarianism. But our democratic Republic is an experiment that is not always practical or easy carry out.

In a world in which everything is on-demand, instantaneous, and at the touch of a finger, can we, as a country and society, see the benefits of democracy? Can we value democracy? Can democracy thrive?

The concept of democracy, self-governance, free association, and the like does not lend itself to easy answers, pithy sound bites, or even pragmatism.

Democracy is messy. It is complex. It is unruly.

Indeed, it is not always desirable to receive and deeply contemplate others’ worldviews. It is not always simple to accept the change that can occur through the democratic process. It is not always easy to compromise with someone who has a diametrically opposing perspective for the good of the whole.

I think our founders would be surprised that our experiment in self-governance has gone on as long as it has.

Democratic ideals can be easily dismissed through arguments of practicality and inefficiency. It can be killed through dangerous narratives that suggest “the system is rigged” or “the people are dumb.”

Our founders understood that for democratic ideas and ideals to live on, it requires an “enlightened citizenry” – a citizenry that values not whether they are rewarded by the system but whether the system is strengthened through their process of participation.

Our founders also understood that it requires a citizenry that is willing to protect the Republic. Protecting democracy and democratic ideals is not for the faint at heart. The American revolutionaries of the 1770s and 1780s understood what it was like to put everything on the line against an overmatched adversary. And they, like Zelensky, put it all on the line – for an idea.

So, at this moment in history, I feel it worthy to ask:

Are there enough Zelenskys?

Are there enough people who would put it all on the line to protect and promote democracy and its ideals?

Are you a Zelensky?

Are we? Am I?

I am.