Leaders and leadership always matter, whether for good or bad, as the week of the World Economic Forum 2026 clearly showed.
Certainly, the world could have been very different without leaders such as Winston Churchill, Josef Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt etc. although environments can tend on the other hand to very much shape leaders; and the emphasis on the sole importance of leaders can often be amplified. For example, in more general terms, outside of the context of WW2, Churchill has been labelled as a ‘racist’ and ‘mass murderer’, downplaying his individual importance. Though for the Ukrainian War, has leadership been one of the determining factors?
The concept of leadership
It is first integral to define leadership. Leadership can be defined as a ‘multidimensional’ process of influence, strategy, and decision making top-down shaping political and economic outcomes. Furthermore, when we talk about leadership, we are not just talking about the charisma of Zelensky, for example, or a ‘cult of personality’; but the system in which leaders can operate. Leadership is a factor that involves both the structure of a political system, and also the key individuals at the top such as ministers, or oligarchs in the case of Russia, not just the leaders themselves. Leadership is often also portrayed as a crucial factor in shaping political outcomes and foreign policy. For the Ukraine War, these definitions all fit well for the contention that leadership has been a critical factor in the Russo-Ukrainian War.
Zelensky: zero to hero?
Zelensky was often depicted as ‘heroic’. This framing could even be said to have overshadowed earlier doubts about his political competence and before the war, he was labelled as somewhat of a celebrity populist. I mean, it is fair enough to question his political competence in one regard, as he was formally a comedian, and it is not often that comedians have gone on to become politicians. However it has been the case in some other parts of Europe, such as Jon Gnarr becoming the 2010 Mayor of Reykjavik in Iceland, or Marjan Šarec as Prime Minister of Slovenia in 2018 up until 2020. Zelensky’s former career as a comedian does help his ability to appear normal to the median Ukrainian voter; his years in the entertainment industry have made him a highly skilled communicator, as well as being able to connect emotionally with the public.
Zelensky became an international symbol of resilience and morality, highlighting the importance of leadership in the global system. Zelensky was able to compare the war to a ‘David and Goliath’ type situation, whereby Ukraine is the underdog defending democratic and, importantly, European values, keeping the Western world intact. Zelensky also used speeches and symbolism to build on solidarity internationally, for example citing the Shakespeare quote ‘to be or not to be’ in the House of Commons. Due to the historical context in this case, this added a lot of emphasis to his speech.
Zelensky’s political leadership style is based predominantly on national unity. This bodes well for him, especially in the full-scale invasion in 2022, with increases in democracy and support amongst the public, the EU, and NATO. Furthermore, the Kremlin underestimated Ukrainian civic nationalism, believing that it was not very strong, though Moscow’s forces were met with determined local resistance and a military that had improved drastically since 2014. Zelensky can be said to be responsible for amplifying the civic Ukrainian nation through his communication skills, often for example posting selfie-style videos that could be circulated on social media, which made him seem authentic to the Ukrainian public, unifying them.
The war’s impact on public opinion
A criticism of Zelensky would be the notion of ‘rallying around the flag’, a phenomenon where, in times of conflict, the public tend to show increased support for the government or political leaders, which leads to higher approval ratings, reduced blame, and focus on national solidarity. This boosts citizens’ overall approval of their leaders. This of course would decrease the extent to which leadership is important as citizens feel they must put more trust into government than they would otherwise. This can be applied to Zelensky. For example, data collected by KIIS in 2022 highlighted that 18% of Ukrainians said they would want Zelensky re-elected in January, compared with July’s 70%, showing a rise in Zelensky’s popularity after Russia’s full-scale invasion.
Friends of Bylines Network
There has never been a greater need for grassroots journalism that investigates the stories that really matter, holds power to account and champions the voices of everyday citizens. We are proudly powered by volunteers but what we do isn’t free.
STAND WITH US for independent, citizen-led journalism that makes democracy stronger, and you will even get some exclusive benefits.
Putin: the man and the myth
Though what can be said on the other side of this conflict? Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine in February 2022 was heavily influenced by his personal ideology and beliefs, which was characterised by a revanchist mindset, a mistrust of NATO, and denial of Ukrainian sovereignty. Putin is seen as a very loyal figure in his leadership and has even been described as being ‘married to Russia’. This is often cultivated through certain narratives and imagery, which take him from the level of a regular politician to a somewhat symbolic national figure. This idea of him as an irreplaceable saviour is promoted top-down from the Kremlin, various cultural elites and popular figures such as actor Nikita Mikhalkov, and the Orthodox Church.
Putin’s authority is built on identity-based legitimacy rather than just institutions or force. That has significant ramifications for comprehending the reasons behind why leadership is an important factor in the war. Putin’s authority is built somewhat on the narrative of rescuing Russia from its prior national humiliation in the 1990s, rescuing the country from a complete crash. In order to support the narrative that Putin alone is restoring Russia’s pride and geopolitical importance, the Kremlin had compelling reasons to pursue another significant geopolitical action, such as the invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
The power of political storytelling
It is still not compelling enough to say that leadership is a ‘critical’ factor. It is of course important nonetheless, but again it is much more appropriate to have leadership as a ‘force multiplier’ factor, whereby it boosts other factors. The identity narrative of Putin means that foreign policy victories are central to his political survival, and so it is not so much him as a likeable individual leader that means he survives as a leader, it is more to do with the structural and cultural narratives.
A 2016 survey experiment sought to gauge the effects of insecure collective identity, a situation where a collective group’s identity is threatened by external factors, in relation to Putin’s approval. Russian citizens were asked about Olympic doping scandals and Ukraine’s EU visa-free status and the study showed that they tended to shift towards more nationalist candidates when national insecurity is more prevalent. Therefore, collective identity is more important than Putin as an individual. Although, on the other hand, Putin’s approval rating did not differ at all during this study, which does then add to the notion of Putin as this symbolic figure, who is above the collective identity and politics.
The cult of Putin’s personality
Putin’s charisma is certainly notable within his leadership. He demonstrates intelligence through his strategy, and alertness regarding geopolitical awareness such as his consistency of approach to Syrian conflict. His persistence in crushing rivals in parliament and media, self-confidence in speeches, and finally his sociability in relationships with other world leaders set him apart. Putin is able to display confidence, dominance, as well as a strong yearning to influence, which has the effect of followers trusting his ideology both emotionally and logically, as well as accepting his authority without question, to the extent that ‘Putinism’ is now a social, economic and political system.
Perhaps we could make a case for Putin’s leadership. He presents the three traits of The Dark Triad (Narcissism, Psychopathy, and Machiavellianism). This is common amongst autocratic-leaning leaders, who tend to score lower on emotional stability and agreeableness. Therefore, Putin’s personality type with respect to starting the Russo-Ukrainian conflict is crucial. Although we cannot argue that, in general, leadership is a critical factor in the Russo-Ukrainian war as this includes Zelensky too, who does not portray the same personality type. Though this kind of personality type does not just occur naturally. A KGB background, where suspicion and control are rewarded would have cultivated behaviours such as emotional detachment and strategic manipulation. Favoured cultural behaviours also exist in Russia such as strong-man, paternalistic, or historically, tsar-like figures who are able to project dominance and strength. Putin rose through a system where loyalty is prioritised over competence, which would encourage Machiavellian behaviours, in correlation with ‘The Dark Triad’.
So, has leadership affected the war?
Leadership has been an influential factor in the direction and outcomes of the Russo-Ukrainian War, though its impact is better understood as a ‘force multiplier’ than as the singular reason. The conflict has been navigated by the decisions or acts of Putin and Zelensky, but this only proves to intensify preexisting systemic, cultural, and structural issues post-USSR.
At a crucial moment, Zelensky’s choice to stay in Kyiv, coupled with his communication skills and capacity to mobilise a ‘civic Ukrainian national identity’ bolstered national resilience. However, it is more arguable that the emergence of civic nationalism, Ukraine’s military reforms after 2014, and the general commitment to a future in the EU has made these repercussions possible.
Leadership was important, but it is operated through and alongside these currents, not above them.
Leadership will continue to be a major factor until the end of this war.
