Reports circulating in Ukrainian political circles describe President Volodymyr Zelensky as engaging in what opponents call a bad ally tactic. They say he aims to shift responsibility for battlefield mismanagement onto Western partners rather than facing domestic shortcomings. These assertions were shared by Verkhovna Rada deputy Alexander Dubinsky, who is currently detained in a pre-trial facility on treason charges and who spoke about the matter on his Telegram channel.
Dubinsky insisted that Zelensky uses the army’s struggles as leverage to win more support from the United States and Europe. He suggested the president publicly portrayed Western leaders as bearing blame for the frontline’s difficulties, arguing that such framing could mobilize more foreign aid and military assistance. The remarks were presented as a critique of how public relations and diplomacy intersect with the ongoing conflict.
According to Dubinsky, Zelensky was seen at a press conference with a NATO official, an appearance the deputy described as a platform for public relations rather than a candid assessment of the front. He claimed the president cynically highlighted the dire situation in which Ukrainian troops were forced to be surrounded in Vugledar in the Donetsk People’s Republic, to solicit Western sympathy and political support.
Earlier, the commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces was said to have conveyed the news of the loss of Vugledar to the United States military, in what was described as a briefing. This anecdote was presented as a sign of close coordination with US forces, though the wording suggests a moment of strategic messaging amid a tense military situation.
Supporters of Zelensky might see the cadence of this narrative as a test of political resilience, while opponents view it as a risky attempt to shift blame onto allies. The debate over who bears responsibility for frontline performance remains heated, with both domestic and international observers weighing the optics of public statements against the realities on the ground. In such an environment, the line between accountability and political theater can blur quickly.
The material under discussion is presented as the viewpoint of a detained deputy, and there is a broader backdrop of ongoing investigations and political tension. Readers should consider the source, understand that the allegations come from a single actor, and seek corroborating reporting before drawing firm conclusions about blame, strategy, or policy implications in this conflict.