Putin and Zelensky: Comparison of a comedian and an intelligence officer

Putin and Zelensky: Comparison of a comedian and an intelligence officer

Looking at the posts on social media, it seems like we have found another area to divide as a society. Some of them have become Putinists, some have become Zelenskies, in a hurry to praise the person they favor. While Zelenskians talk about Putin's dictatorship, imperialism or murder, the Putinists compare Zelenski and Putin, emphasizing that one is a comedian actor and the other a professional manager with intelligence background, and claiming that Putin is more competent as a manager.

I will not go into the arguments of the former, but I do not believe that there is no consistent basis for trying to humiliate Zelensky because he is an actor. Because there are many statesmen who got into politics while acting in the past and were very successful. Ronald Reagan, the US president from 1981 to 1989, for example, was an actor. Moreover, he was not a very famous person who translated cowboy movies.

The presidents of the Soviet Union in the same period were either professional managers of intelligence organization or communist party origin. Despite this, Reagan, with his policies, caused the Soviet Union to be exhausted, blocked and collapsed.

I wouldn't be surprised if Zelenski, who is a much more successful actor than Reagan, also causes the collapse of Putin and his regime. Adam is not only a more successful actor than Reagan, but he also performs better than anyone expected. For this reason, we should not make conclusive comments and humiliate the man as a comedian.

In my opinion, it would be more accurate to evaluate Putin and Zelensky not according to their former professions, but according to the leadership and managerial qualities they have displayed since the beginning of the war. For this reason, I try to understand and compare the leadership characteristics of Putin and Zelensky from the news that has been reflected in the media since the war started.

As far as I can see, Putin is displaying an authoritarian and somewhat military leadership that holds the reins of the country. He is the final and sole decision maker. Like his ministers, headquarters officers. They work within the framework of the main idea reported by Putin and in accordance with this idea and make an offer. If their proposals don't align with Putin's gist, they are brushed off, as the latest intelligence chief was exposed in front of television cameras. So they don't have a big impact on decision and behavior styles.

After pretending to take their opinions and actually confirming the decisions he made at the beginning, Putin gives them all their orders and the roles they will play. Accordingly, they do their duty and act in front of the press. For this reason, in Russia, it is mostly the ministers who speak before the camera. Putin, on the other hand, does not show himself very often as a requirement of authoritarian leadership. He only makes statements on very important matters. These statements are like the speeches of the commanders in the military units; It is determined, decisive and commanding.

In Ukraine, the situation is the opposite. As I understand it, bureaucrats work in detail and determine the policies, strategies and tactics to be implemented with the ministers. Probably, when the decisions are outlined, they are presented to Zelenski and his opinion is taken. It is possible to say that since he is an actor, that is, he does not have much knowledge on matters related to state administration, he did not interfere in these decisions much, except for some minor corrections.

When the decisions are clear and Zelenski approves, everyone goes about their business. Zelenski is also given the role of acting in order to reflect the implemented policies, strategies and tactics to the public. For this reason, while Ukrainian ministers rarely appear before the cameras, Zelenski makes statements in front of the cameras every day. Since he's an actor and used to cameras, he's good at acting.

If we compare the leadership and decisions of Putin and Zelenski within the framework of these evaluations; It can be said that in Russia, decisions are taken within the framework of the thoughts of a single person, while in Ukraine the process is more democratic and more collective, and the evaluations of professionals are more effective in making decisions.

The advantage of authoritarian and one-person decision-making systems is that decisions can be made quickly and implemented quickly. The weakness of this system is that a person is more likely to make mistakes while making a decision, and the decisions taken are executed as much as the leader is feared, that is, they are not carried out with faith because they are not owned.

The advantage of democratic leadership is that the infrastructure of the decisions is formed with the participation of professionals and subordinates from the bottom up, and since the leader acts as the coordinator and approval authority, more accurate decisions can be taken. In addition, collective decisions can be implemented faithfully and to the end, as they are adopted by everyone. The most important weakness of this system is that the decision-making process takes a long time. For this reason, problems may arise in times of crisis when sudden decisions are required.

As can be seen, although the two leaders show quite different characteristics, It's hard to make an exact comparison in terms of their performance so far and say anything about which one is better. War is an action where moments of high crisis abound, requiring quick decisions and decisive implementation. In this respect, it can be said that Putin's authoritarian leadership is more useful. However, today's wars are quite different from the classical wars of the past.

In war, propaganda, cyber warfare, psychological warfare etc. many different elements are used effectively. Civilians, volunteers and resistance organizations are becoming elements of war as well as soldiers. In other words, wars have become hybrid rather than conventional. It is possible to see this in the Ukrainian war as well.

From this point of view, it is possible to say that Zelenski's leadership style is more functional. As a matter of fact, Zelensky succeeded in influencing almost the whole world and isolating Russia by facing heavy embargoes that have never been seen before. However, it is not possible for now to say that his leadership was decisive on the outcome of the war.

Because war is not an action that can be evaluated by how many battles you have won or how many areas you have been successful in. Success in war is judged by whose national goal is ultimately achieved. For example, in the National Struggle, the Greeks emerged victorious from more battles against us. But at the end of the war, as the dream of Greater Greece collapsed, Greece lost almost all of its army and faced internal turmoil. For this reason, it is necessary to wait for the outcome of the war to decide who is a better leader and manager.