Who Controls Zelensky?

Is Zelensky his own man? Almost certainly not. Recent Ukrainian history, especially the Maidan Revolution of 2014, which has been frequently characterized as a coup, is marked by a series of questionable elections, with either Russian-aligned or Western-aligned forces pulling the strings. Volodymyr Zelensky, elected president in 2019, ran on an anti-establishment and anti-corruption platform, but has had questionable connections with the Bidens and is clearly aligned with corrupt factions in Ukraine.

According to Wikipedia, although Zelensky initially said he would serve only a single term, he walked back this promise in May 2021, saying he had not yet made up his mind. and he has subsequently suspended elections following the 2022 Russian invasion. One reason frequently cited for his opposition to a peace agreement is the fact that it woulld result in new elections.

So far, even as events have turned against Ukraine, someone thinks he's doing well enough to stay, even though the resources appear always to have been in place to remove any Ukrainian president and could still be invoked at any time, constitution or no. Who would his owner, or owners, be? Sundance at Conservative Treehouse has been the most prominent speculator:

The broader ‘western’ intelligence actors have been in control of Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s activity in the conflict with Russia. The outline of their plan is within the statements delivered by the Ukrainian leader, we just have to accept them.

The people who control Ukraine, Intelligence Community, CIA, elements of U.S. State Dept., NATO, EU Commission and the private sector banks and World Economic Forum investment handlers, do not want to accept a Ukraine-Russia ceasefire or peace agreement.

This aforementioned network of influence agents specifically does not want President Trump and President Putin to come to terms, because they well understand the regional territory of Ukraine will not return.

. . . As soon as U.S. troops enter the equation on the ground in Russia, particularly as the buffer force in the point of conflict between Ukranian and Russian military, there will be some intentional event created to harm U.S. troops and thrust the USA NATO alliance in direct combat with Russia.

This is the element of Zelenskyy’s greatest need. If U.S. troops are killed or drawn into combat, an escalated war against Russia becomes the tool to get all the captured territory back. The outline is clear.

Putting US troops in a position to backstop token European troops as a peacekeeping force is clearly the aim of Starmer's "coalition of the willing", and in the view of Stephen Wertheim in The Guardian, this is what Trump is determined to avoid:

In the past month, the Trump administration has delivered several strong and sometimes conflicting messages to America’s allies and partners in Europe. Discerning the signal in the noise isn’t easy, but amid the zigs, zags and bombast, the new administration appears to be taking a position that Ukrainian and European leaders aren’t hearing – or are trying to alter.

The crux of the message seems to be this: the US will either broker an end to the war in Ukraine in short order or remove itself from the conflict, unless perhaps it deems Russia to have obstructed a ceasefire. (As Trump told Zelenskyy on Friday: “You’re either going to make a deal or we’re out.”) Washington will also refuse to make any commitment to Ukraine’s postwar security, such as Nato membership, that would run a major risk of drawing the US into direct war with Russia – “world war three,” as Trump sees it – if Russia invades Ukraine again.

The US has the sovereign right to adopt this stance, for the sake of its own interests, which include limiting the costs and risks the US is bearing for European defense.

. . . On Friday, in the Oval Office, Zelenskyy contested Trump’s stance. The Ukrainian president stated flatly: “We will never accept just [a] ceasefire. It will not work without security guarantees.” Zelenskyy maintained that strong security guarantees had to come from the US, not just Europe. A European military force, he said, would not work unless the US provided a significant backstop: “They need USA.”

In short, Zelenskyy insisted he would not agree to a ceasefire, because Russia would not honor it, unless the US provided precisely what Trump had seemingly already ruled out. As the conversation devolved, Trump eventually threatened to withdraw US aid to Ukraine altogether if Zelenskyy’s position did not change.

It's less important from Trump's point of view that Zelensky's controllers be identified than it is to remove their current agent, namely Zelensky. There can be little question that Zelensky's most visible sponsors -- the UK's Starmer, who has clearly ordered King Charles to put his own prestige on the line by posing for pictures with Zelensky, and France's Macron, are among his controllers. But who controls Starmer and Macron? Good question, and we may never know. But does it matter?

Not to Trump. His program is now to get Zelensky out of the picture:

Speaker Mike Johnson on Sunday said that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy might need to resign to bring peace to his country following a contentious meeting between Zelenskyy, President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance on Friday.

“Something has to change,” Johnson said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, echoing comments made Friday by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). “Either he needs to come to his senses and come back to the table in gratitude, or someone else needs to lead the country to do that.”

Tulsi Gabbard, who is at least nominally in charge of the US intelligence community that's thought to own Zelensky, is of similar mind:

Gabbard joined “Fox News Sunday,” where she weighed in on international relations after Zelensky and Trump’s meeting had a fiery ending.

“President Trump recognizes the urgent need to end this war after three long, bloody years and has proven that he is the only person that can do this,” Gabbard said. “President Zelensky has different aims in mind.”

Gabbard argued that Zelensky will only accept a deal that leads to “what he views as Ukraine’s victory,” no matter if it leads to a third world war.

“President Trump is committed to peace and to freedom,” she said. “We’re seeing this big divergence here between his position and his commitment to these values and the interests of the American people and the interests of President Zelensky and these European leaders.”

So it looks like the message Trump is now sending to Zelensky's handlers is either get him with the program -- unlikely -- or get rid of him. Trump can wait. If they put Zelensky in, they can take him out, one way or another. It reminds me a little of what Rush Limbaugh said about himself, the people who control the media didn't put him in, and they can't destroy him. Same for Trump, the people who put Zelensky in can take Zelensky out, but they didn't create Trump, and they can't get rid of him.