Great leadership is often defined by circumstance. A leader who thrives in chaos may falter in stability; one who rallies a nation in war may struggle to unify it in peace.
The battlefield makes great heroes, but it does not always make great peacemakers. This pattern is not unique to our modern world – it is as old as leadership.
Among the most enduring stories that capture this reality is that of King David, Israel’s biblical warrior-king. David’s triumph over Goliath is a universal metaphor for the underdog defeating insurmountable odds.
Today, President Volodymyr Zelensky and Ukraine are compared to King David. Both symbolize resistance, resilience, and strength against the odds. Both are profound examples of an underdog standing against overwhelming force. Both inspire with their defiance and determination.
But comparisons between David and Zelensky are apt for another reason: They illuminate the difficulty of transitioning from warrior to statesperson.
David spent his life waging battles and securing his people’s future through determination and force. Yet when he sought to build the Temple – a monument to peace – he was denied the task. That honor fell to his son Solomon, a ruler defined not by war but by wisdom and diplomacy.
The blood on David’s hands had been necessary for Israel’s survival, but it also made him unfit for the next stage of leadership. The Temple required a different kind of ruler – one who could build rather than fight.
David’s story is not unique. History is filled with leaders who prove indispensable in war but struggle to transition to peace. These leaders rise in battle – defined by their defiance and resilience – but struggle when the moment demands negotiation, compromise, and long-term stability.
When Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Zelensky’s leadership electrified the world. His now-iconic refusal to flee (“The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride”) instantly redefined him from a former comedian-turned-president to a symbol of strength and defiance. His military fatigues, stirring speeches, and ability to command the global stage turned him into a wartime leader and rallied billions in aid.
Zelensky intuited – or very quickly mastered – the optics of war. He knew how to read a room, whether addressing Congress with references to Pearl Harbor and 9/11, or captivating the British Parliament with historical analogies and perfectly timed humor.
He seamlessly tied Ukraine’s struggle to Western values. His leadership was a case study in mobilization – turning a desperate national struggle into a global cause.
The West, hungry for heroes, responded.
Zelensky's appearance as a leader
ZELENSKY’S REACH extended into pop culture. He and his wife, Olena, appeared in a Vogue magazine spread, blurring the lines between war and celebrity culture. He popped up at the Golden Globes. His image began appearing on action figures, T-shirts, and coffee mugs.
He made surprise video appearances at celebrity-filled events, including the Grammy Awards and the Cannes Film Festival. Sean Penn gave him one of his Oscars. High-profile figures made pilgrimages to Kyiv. Bars and restaurants created Zelensky-themed cocktails. He became a character in video games.
As the war progressed, however, cracks in Zelensky’s leadership started to appear. The 2023 counteroffensive, which he aggressively touted as a turning point, fell far short of the expectations he set.
Zelensky faced increasing scrutiny for his domestic leadership. His approach to addressing corruption within his ranks was inconsistent, often shielded by a media reluctant to expose Ukraine’s internal struggles. His consolidation of power further alienated his critics.
Ukraine’s once-unshakable internal unity became increasingly splintered. Zelensky’s greatest miscalculation has been how the burden of war has weighed on Western allies. Zelensky’s uncompromising stance – crucial in the war’s early days and central to his country’s cause – grew more challenging to promote among his allies’ fatigued publics and cautious governments.
His single most important ally, the US, experienced a profound shift in political winds amid rising skepticism about a US strategy toward the war that had morphed into a pattern of equipping Ukraine just enough to sustain the fight but not enough to secure outright victory – or to necessitate a pivot toward an off-ramp.
This past week’s heated confrontation involving US President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Zelensky marks a new low, but tensions between Zelensky and Western leaders have been evident from the start. Last week, Zelensky angered Trump by publicly declaring that Trump parrots Russian disinformation and alienated US envoy Scott Bessent by yelling at him over a mineral deal.
THE US is not the only ally with which Zelensky has publicly quarreled. Ukraine’s ties with Poland, one of its strongest supporters, fractured in September 2023 over grain exports undercutting Polish farmers, prompting Poland to pause arms shipments.
Zelensky inflamed the situation by publicly rebuking Poland at the UN, leading President Andrzej Duda to compare Ukraine to a drowning man who might drag others down. At the July 2023 NATO summit, Zelensky denounced the alliance for vague assurances on Ukraine’s future membership, calling them “unprecedented and absurd.”
Earlier that year, Zelensky’s anger over German delays in sending Leopard 2 tanks escalated into a diplomatic standoff. Zelensky publicly called out Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Germany’s indecision multiple times, framing it as a failure of leadership.
In an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, he took a jab at Scholz’s reluctance to act without US involvement. His team leveraged social media and public appearances to intensify the pressure, portraying Germany’s reluctance as an existential threat to Ukraine’s survival.
Zelensky alienated France in June 2022 when President Emmanuel Macron suggested Russia should not be “humiliated” to preserve future diplomacy, a notion Zelensky outright rejected, publicly insisting that Macron was wrong and that Russia must be decisively defeated.
Zelensky’s public rebukes have shaped his strategy from the war’s outset. In March 2022, he accused NATO of cowardice for refusing a no-fly zone, declaring that those killed in Ukraine would die because of the alliance’s “weakness.”
His confrontational style has made him an inspiring wartime leader and a most challenging partner for reaching peace. From Zelensky’s perspective, which he shares widely, moderation is a luxury Ukraine cannot afford; moderation includes making painful compromises that diplomacy can demand.
The shift from wartime to peacetime leadership is fraught because it requires different temperaments. War demands defiance, clarity, and the ability to inspire; peace demands pragmatism, compromise, and long-term vision.
In ancient times, King David was unmatched as a warrior-king, but the task of building the Temple – creating something lasting beyond war – was left to Solomon.
George Washington was a brilliant general, but our young nation needed a different kind of leader to build a functional government. Winston Churchill was indispensable in Britain’s darkest hour, yet was voted out of office when victory was in sight. These are not failures of leadership – they are the essence of it.
True leadership is not just about wielding power but also understanding when the moment calls for a different kind of leader – one who can build what comes next. The leaders who win wars rarely win the peace, and the most demanding test of leadership may be to know when the skills and temperament that carried a nation through battle are no longer the ones it needs to rebuild.
David’s greatest wisdom lay in recognizing that the Temple was not his to build. If Zelensky’s role is to be Ukraine’s David, then Ukraine must also be ready for its Solomon – someone who can transform survival into something lasting beyond war.
The writer is a professor at Stony Brook University of the State University of New York.