Putin v Zelensky: The personality clash that has defined the war in Ukraine

Might two leaders other than these have been more open to an early resolution – or even avoided armed conflict altogether? asks Mary Dejevsky

Plenty of attention has been paid to the mindset of both leaders (Getty)

One of the eternal arguments in history, as in politics, hinges on the role of the individual. How far does individual behaviour or character determine the course of events, or is it rather circumstances, including economic circumstances, that hold the key? My own view, at least since 19 August, 1991, is that an individual can indeed change the course of history. As one of those who witnessed the then Russian leader, Boris Yeltsin, clamber on to a tank outside the Russian parliament to challenge the hardline coup against Mikhail Gorbachev, there is no doubt in my mind.

Objective factors may have militated against the success of the coup, including poor organisation by the conspirators, but Yeltsin’s decision to defy the plotters transformed the odds, as well as sowing the seeds for the Soviet Union’s collapse. Jump forward more than 30 years, and the role of the individual and character may be one of the more neglected aspects of the Russia-Ukraine war. Could it be, for instance, that two leaders other than Volodymyr Zelensky and Vladimir Putin might have been more open to an early resolution or even avoided armed conflict altogether? Might something in the dynamic between them actually have made the conflict worse?

Of course, plenty of attention has been paid to the mindset of both leaders. Zelensky, the democratically elected president turned war leader, whose defiance of the Russian invasion has elevated him into a celebrity around the world, offers further support for the decisive role of the individual in history. His renowned response to the US offer of refuge – that he needed “ammunition, not a ride” – determined that Ukraine would fight back as a nation; there would be no capitulation and no opening for messy guerrilla action that might risk civil war.