Ukraine 2022, through the leadership binoculars

Abstract

The essay provides a take, by a historian, on the 2022 Ukraine war. It draws attention to the fact that, over the past 20 years, terms such as “game-changer” or “turning point” have been frequently employed to characterize important junctures. However, 2022 is qualitatively different from all of these, as it represents the antithesis to 1989 and marks the end of an entire era. From the leadership perspective, one immediate effect of a turning point is the reckoning with the past that it entails. It forces a rethink on past behavior. And this collective cognitive rewiring triggers the questioning of the legacy of leaders associated with the now discredited course of action. Taking the example of the crisis of conscience currently underway in Germany, the essay cautions against scapegoating that relies on retrospective selection bias; suggesting instead, that the focus of attention should be shifted to the collective cognitive blinders that prevented the numerous Cassandras, who understood the genuine nature of Putinist aggression, from being listened to. The essay then turns its attention to the proliferation of historical analogies and comparisons, arguing that this tells us less about the event and more about the fact that our compasses have gone haywire. As corollaries of our profound disarray, they even prevent us from gaining a better understanding of the phenomenon. This is addressed in the final part, which includes reflections on Putin as a leader, Putinist followership, as well as the challenges Western leaders are likely to face in the future.

The return of the hero-leader? Volodymyr Zelensky’s international image and the global response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

“…Ukrainians undertook the necessary duties required in a society under attack; they became massively involved in the production of petrol bombs, returning from abroad to lend their support, standing in the way of tanks and destroying columns of armoured Russian vehicles. This scale of determination in responding to the aggression both expanded Zelensky’s moral authority and legitimized the narrative he has been presenting to the world (Sanders, 2022). As the Financial Times summarised the situation, granting him the title of the ‘Person of the Year’ (Roula et al, 2022): “The president of Ukraine embodies the resilience of his people and has become a standard bearer for liberal democracy”.…”

“…However the risks associated with this strategy are real, so getting to this point of making the US want what he wants, is an unequivocal success of Zelensky's campaign. It worth remembering that at the beginning of the war political intuition dictated to many Western leaders to keep 'business as usual'; Germany, Hungary, and Italy took an ambiguous stance on the sanctions on Russia, before they joined others in qualifying the event as a historical 'turning point' (Sanders, 2022). Zelensky's international reception and strong US backing were decisive in the process through which unprecedented penalties were imposed on the invader.…”

Volodymyr Zelenskyy, heroic leadership, and the historical gaze

“…Press reports often refer to "Putin's war" while asserting that "it is Russian President Vladimir Putin's war and no one else['s]" (MacMillan, 2022). And yet, Putin comes embedded in both a long history of Russian/ Soviet imperialism as well as a close-knit circle of anti-liberal and increasingly autocratic elites (Sanders, 2022).…”

Editorial transitions: Hail and farewell

“…Secondly, I have tried to encourage papers that address really important issues in our world, such as climate change (Case et al, 2015), the war in Ukraine (Grint, 2022; Sanders, 2022), racism (e.g. Ladkin, 2022 – see also a special issue on racism and leadership, in February 2021), the COVID pandemic (e.g.…”