Is Zelenskyy caged by Animal Farm’s Boxer syndrome and can he keep chasing ‘absolute victory’ goal?

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is likely to be in the spotlight as he holds talks with US President Donald Trump on Monday night (India time). Trump has put the onus of ending the Ukraine war, going on for over three years, on Zelenskyy, who has top European leaders crossing the Atlantic to ensure he is not ambushed the same way as his February visit to the White House.

But Zelenskky has a lot to decide as many wonder what the Ukraine president would be pondering when he meets Trump: will he ponder for himself, or for his country?

“I do not understand it. I would not have believed that such things could happen on our farm. It must be due to some fault in ourselves. The solution, as I see it, is to work harder. From now onwards I shall get up a full hour earlier in the mornings.”

The above passage is spoken by Boxer, the hardworking cart-horse in George Orwell’s Animal Farm. At this point in the story, the animals are beginning to face difficulties on the farm under the pigs’ leadership, yet Boxer cannot bring himself to question Napoleon or the system. Instead, when he says the sentence above, he reveals both his loyalty and his tragic naivety. Rather than recognising that the pigs are exploiting other animals, Boxer concludes that the blame lies within themselves and that the solution is simply greater effort.

Ukraine today faces a similar situation under President Zelenskyy’s wartime leadership. Since regaining independence in 1991, Ukraine has lived at the edge of two powerful gravitational fields: Russia to the east and the Western bloc led by the European Union and Nato to the west. This positioning has created opportunities but also exposed Ukraine to a unique strain of geopolitical turbulence.

In recent years, particularly since 2014, the narrative of Ukraine’s future has been increasingly framed as a binary choice: integrate with the West or resist Russia’s influence. Yet such framing overlooks a difficult truth—Ukraine’s path to lasting peace and prosperity may depend not on endless sacrifice or rigid defiance, but on pragmatic leadership willing to prioritise lives over land, peace over pride, and compromise over confrontation.

Historical ties that cannot be ignored

Ukraine and Russia share centuries of interwoven history. From the medieval state of Kyivan Rus to the long era under the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, Ukraine has been deeply linked to Russia politically, culturally, linguistically and economically. Millions of Ukrainians have family ties across the border. The Russian language still remains widely spoken.

Economically, until the last decade, Russia was Ukraine’s primary trading partner, supplying natural gas and serving as a major export market. These legacies create a reality that cannot simply be erased by treaties with Europe or military aid from the United States.

Ukraine’s geography places it as a bridge rather than a barrier. To imagine a Ukraine flourishing in permanent hostility with Russia is to underestimate the weight of history and proximity.

Costs of conflict

The ongoing war, intensified by Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, has inflicted staggering costs on Ukraine. Tens of thousands of lives have been lost. Millions have been displaced internally or forced into exile abroad.

Infrastructure has been shattered—power stations, schools, hospitals and entire neighbourhoods reduced to rubble. The economy has contracted, foreign investment has dried up and reconstruction needs are estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

For ordinary Ukrainians, this war is not a chess match of geopolitics but a daily fight for survival. The longer the war drags on, the deeper the scars and the more fragile the nation’s future.

Zelenskyy’s defiant stance has earned global admiration, but admiration has not shown the way how the cities destroyed in the war could be rebuilt. At some point, the calculus is likely return to the most basic principle: human lives are more precious than territorial lines.

Western embrace: Support with strings

Ukraine’s westward trend after 2014 was both understandable and necessary for a nation seeking security guarantees and economic opportunity. The EU Association Agreement, visa-free travel to Europe and growing Nato cooperation offered Ukrainians a sense of belonging to the democratic, prosperous West.

Since 2022, Western nations have poured in military equipment, humanitarian aid and financial support. This backing has been indispensable to Ukraine’s survival. Yet it also comes with strings. Western governments have their own strategic priorities.

Aid can be delayed, reduced or made conditional on reforms. Nato membership remains elusive, blocked by fears of direct confrontation with Russia.

Meanwhile, ordinary Ukrainians face the possibility of their nation becoming a proxy battlefield for larger powers rather than an autonomous state shaping its own destiny. Dependence on Western aid is not a permanent solution. It is just a temporary lifeline.

Russia: A neighbour that cant be replaced

No matter how bitter the conflict, geography is unchangeable. Russia will remain Ukraine’s largest neighbour, a nuclear power and a dominant force in the region. Unlike distant allies in Washington, London or Brussels, Russia is next door. For Ukraine to flourish in peace, it cannot build its entire future on enmity with its most immediate neighbour.

A strategy that ignores Russia is a strategy that condemns Ukraine to perpetual instability. Historical examples abound of countries turning bitter rivalries into pragmatic coexistence: France and Germany after World War II, Vietnam and the United States decades after conflict. Ukraine, too, may one day need to find a formula to engage Russia not as a master or a partner of choice, but as a neighbour with whom coexistence is unavoidable.

The question of Donetsk

Among the most painful dilemmas for Ukraine is the question of Donetsk and the wider Donbas region. For years, Donetsk has been a flashpoint of conflict. While its mines and industries were once an economic engine, decades of mismanagement, war and sanctions have left the region in ruins.

Continuing to fight for its return has drained Ukrainian lives and resources. Pragmatically, ceding control of Donetsk to Russia might not actually be the defeat many imagine if Zelenskyy is forced to sign such a deal. To many, this could a first step toward recovery. The area is already firmly under Russian control.

The argument backing this solution is thar relinquishing Donetsk would allow Ukraine to redirect its limited resources toward rebuilding regions firmly under Kyiv’s control, such as Kharkiv, Odesa and Dnipro. It would reduce the human cost of defending contested territories and give millions of Ukrainians a chance to rebuild their lives without constant shelling.

Moreover, by drawing a line under one of the most intractable disputes, Ukraine could stabilise its borders, attract foreign investment and demonstrate to the world that it values peace and human security over endless war.

Proponent of this peace approach also cite history to argue that nations can recover and thrive even after territorial concessions. Germany after World War II and South Korea after its division are examples of resilience born out of compromise.

Price of land versus value of lives

The central dilemma for Zelenskyy is how to balance territorial integrity with the preservation of life. The principle of sovereignty is non-negotiable in international law, yet wars are rarely resolved by absolute victories. Compromise is painful, especially when it involves land.

Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk are names etched in grief and resilience. But if the continuation of fighting means decades of devastation, depopulation and despair, then at what point does the defence of land eclipse the duty to save lives?

Zelenskyy faces the question of whether a pragmatic peace that safeguards the future generations of Ukrainians would be better than a prolonged, unwinnable war of attrition or there is another alternative to explore.

Illusion of total victory

Rhetoric of total victory, of reclaiming every inch of occupied territory, resonates deeply with national pride and international solidarity. Yet reality is harsher. Russia remains a vast power with greater military reserves and nuclear leverage. Western support, though significant, has limits.

War fatigue in donor countries is already visible and political shifts in Europe or the United States may curtail aid further. Ukraine cannot indefinitely match Russia blow for blow, nor can it indefinitely rely on foreign backers. Recognising the limits of military solutions is not surrender but realism.

Zelenskyy’s burden of leadership

President Zelenskyy rose from entertainer to war leader, embodying courage in the face of overwhelming odds. His speeches rallied both Ukrainians and global audiences. Yet leadership is not only about inspiring resistance alone. It is also about knowing when to chart a new course.

History will judge Zelenskyy not merely on how long he defied Russia but on whether he managed to secure a livable peace for his people. His courage to stand up to a bigger armed power is being praised, but some have also blamed him triggering the war.

Zelenskyy has been promising Ukrainians an absolute victory against Russia, something no war strategy expert has backed him for the claim. It appears that to pursue his absolute victory dream, Zelenskyy could be risking stretching Ukraine’s suffering further.

On the hand, if Zelesnkyy negotiates peace by surrendering Ukrainian territories to an invading force, he risks accusations of betrayal. This is the dilemma the Ukrainian president faces; it’s a choice between the politically safe path of symbolic defiance and the morally urgent path of pragmatic compromise.

Toward a vision of peaceful coexistence

For Ukraine to flourish, all commentators agree, the route passes through the fields of stability, security and the safety for ordinary citizens to rebuild their lives. This vision is unlikely to materialise solely through Western alignment or through isolation of Russia. It is likely to happen when Ukraine is both European and regional, Western-leaning but pragmatically cooperative with its eastern neighbour.

Ukraine stands at a crossroads that may define its destiny for generations. The allure of full Western integration is powerful, but geography and history anchor Ukraine to realities it can hardly escape.

Lasting peace in Ukraine is likely not to come from choosing between Russia and the West but from balancing the two, ensuring sovereignty while preventing any perpetual war. For Zelenskyy, the challenge is to make the right choice between the price of land, however integral, and the value of lives, which Ukraine is losing with each passing day in its war with Russia.

Go to Source