Jerry Wilson, my colleague wrote a response to Matt Walsh’s post on RedState. The incident occurred over a comment discussing a song written for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelesky. Walsh made past comments suggesting Zelensky was corrupt and hopeless. However, Walsh wasn’t impressed by the display of hero worship.
This point is mine. Zelensky does not represent a Christlike person. He’s a flawed politician (as they all are) dealing with a foreign invasion of the nation he leads. And full disclosure, I listen to Walsh’s show fairly often, especially while driving, and I have absolutely nothing against him or most of his views.
Still, I think this entire “Never Zelensky” thing deserves some discussion, and to be sure, there are right-wing pundits out there who have staked out such a position, even going so far as to suggest we should believe Putin’s rantings.
I suggest every American who wants to know what’s *actually* going on in Russia and Ukraine, read this transcript of Putin’s address. As I’ve said for month— NATO (under direction from the United States) is violating previous agreements and expanding eastward. WE are the ones responsible. https://t.co/NDmou8I36H
— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) February 22, 2022
Zelensky is a bad character and is working for globalists to harm the rights of his country. I will not move one inch away from that assessment—ever—no matter how flowery the media depictions of him are.
— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) March 17, 2022
Candace Owens, when asked her opinion on Ukraine’s situation has often replied that it was group-think and she didn’t want to be too harsh about Zelensky. On the contrary, I think she’s falling into a type of group-think of her own, deciding that contrarianism for contrarianism’s sake is a good argument.
Let me now share my thoughts about the subject and offer a reply to people who are obsessively against Zelensky. Not as general criticism of marginal matters but rather as an attempt to argue that Russia and Ukraine are equally guilty in the current invasion.
Accept, decry, love, roast.
1 –Vladimir Putin is clearly a poor actor. Russia is third-world and delusionally nationalist. Many Russians think of Joseph Stalin as a genocide communist. Russia was a foreign player in 2016 and 2020, as well as the Obama years. This helped to seed domestic narratives that eventually led to Joe Biden being elected president. Ask yourself who benefited the most from the “Russian interference” push of the last six years? Russia is the obvious answer, as they will now face off against an elderly man who has become senile. Remember, it was Zelensky who said the quid pro quo narrative wasn’t true. Also, Russia should not be trusted with its reasons for invading Ukraine.
2 –It is not clear that Ukraine would be permitted to join NATO. These claims are made by Russian officials. In 2014, the US made it clear that they oppose Ukraine joining NATO. Thus, the idea that “we” provoked Putin doesn’t hold water. Although Trump did send Ukraine lethal assistance, which was a departure from Obama’s policy, it only happened after Russia began attacking the Donbas and conducting exercises along the border. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been telegraphed for years. That Putin held off until Trump left office is a testament to the former president’s strength. Besides, if Russia doesn’t want NATO on its borders (multiple NATO countries already border Russia), then invading Ukraine, which puts NATO on its borders, makes no sense.
3 –Zelensky, while not an angel, is not a kingmaker. And yes, corruption does exist in Ukraine. There is no evidence that Zelensky is a corrupt individual or leads a group of globalist bad actors. You should not view foreign countries through the US’s eyes. Many would argue that the President of El Salvador has been corrupted (the Democrats love to make this claim, given Joe Biden’s opposition). I would say he’s doing what has to be done in an imperfect situation to help his country. Regardless, no corruption on the part of Zelensky justifies Russia invading Ukraine, and it’s important to keep that context. Globalism is something I don’t see. It seems to me that a person will do anything to help his country. That’s not corruption, that’s realpolitik, as desperate as it may seem at times. Zelensky was a strong nationalist who accepted any temptation to globalism out of necessity.
4 –Burisma and her family are the most prominent examples of corruption in Ukraine. That has been used to suggest that we shouldn’t help Ukraine. This topic requires more research. Burisma: Who is it? A member of Ukraine’s pro-Russian party whose president at the time was a Moscow-installed puppet (that now resides in exile in Russia). This was before the invasion in Crimea. The investigation into Burisma was halted by this. That would be Trump’s impeachment. The Russians. Russians. Most of Ukraine’s corrupt oligarchy is also tied to Russia. In other words, when someone says “Ukraine is corrupt,” that’s correct, but most of that fault lies with the Russians.
5 – This is not a case of “both sides are equally bad,” in my view. Sure, it’s reasonable to say Zelensky isn’t perfect, but to state, he’s a “bad character” while openly defending Russia or suggesting there’s no “good side” in the current war? That’s hyperbolic and not backed by evidence. Owens seems to think more critically than she is playing any role. This feels absurdly contrarian. Perhaps that’s because she’s a liberal who shifted to conservatism when it became lucrative, but her arguments feel manufactured and not based on genuine study and reflection. If Zelensky is “corrupt” to the point of not being worthy of support, then she should explain in detail how he’s corrupt and should be opposed in relation to Putin, which is the case she’s making.
6 – Everyone has a right to their own opinion, even if it doesn’t fall in line with mainstream thought. I am not suggesting all counters to pro-Ukrainian sentiment are “doing Putin’s bidding” or the like. Some things I espouse (such as my view on Syria) aren’t mainstream as well. However, I suggest anyone who isn’t comfortable with a particular viewpoint or views it as groupthink that they ask themselves if this is what they really believe. Take a look at the facts and see what evidence you have to support your viewpoint. Don’t adopt a mainstream view just for the sake of doing what’s popular. But at the same time, don’t adopt a non-mainstream view just because it isn’t popular. Group-think doesn’t just exist on CNN, and there will always be overlap on issues, especially when dealing with foreign policy.
In the end, I’m not telling anyone exactly what to think, and I recognize there will be nuance. Rather, I’m suggesting that there are some figures on the right who are seeking to fill a niche of opinion instead of being honest with their audiences. Are songs proclaiming Zelensky as the global savior my favorite? Heck no, I don’t, but that doesn’t change the facts on the ground in Ukraine. Russia’s invasion is wrong and the Ukrainian people obviously have the will to fight for their sovereignty. These are two of the most crucial aspects when forming an opinion about the situation. Most of the noise is deceptive and just noise.
About Post Author
