Zelensky is the one who can't stop the war.

Column: The Responsibility to End the War — The Fate of the Zelensky Administration

It has been several years since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine began. The war has dragged on, and the international community has poured enormous sums of financial support into Ukraine. Yet, where is the exit to this conflict? Seen from Japan, the reality facing the Zelensky administration is undeniably harsh.

■ A President Beyond His Term and “Extended Power”

Although his constitutional term has already expired, President Zelensky continues to cling to power under the pretext of wartime necessity. While he is praised as a “symbol of democracy,” he also faces the looming possibility of being held accountable after the war. Should he leave office while having lost territory, he could face condemnation both domestically and internationally as “incompetent” or even as a “war criminal.” For him, relinquishing power would mean the end of his political life.

■ Shadows of Corruption in Aid Funds

Tens of trillions of yen in aid provided by the United States, Europe, and Japan were supposed to be directed toward sustaining the war effort and eventual reconstruction. Yet suspicions remain that ministers and elites are enriching themselves instead. Such doubts inevitably erode international trust and fuel donor fatigue. If the opaque flow of funds is exposed after the war, can the Zelensky administration withstand the judgment of history?

■ The Side Effects of Weapon Supplies

The advanced weapons and drones supplied by the West may well become threats beyond the battlefield. As seen in Afghanistan and the Middle East, weapons often end up on the black market after wars, falling into the hands of terrorists and criminal organizations. This is not only a problem for Ukraine but a grave security risk for the international community, including Japan.

■ The Reality of Being Unable to Stop the War

Reports routinely denounce President Putin for refusing to end the war. Yet is President Zelensky not also trapped in a position where he “cannot stop” the conflict? To opt for a ceasefire would mean accepting territorial losses, bearing responsibility, and forfeiting domestic support. Thus, he too is compelled to continue the war. As a result, the casualties mount and the quagmire deepens with no exit in sight.

■ Sacrifice in the Name of Justice

When the Ukrainian military kills Russian soldiers or civilians with foreign-supplied weapons, it is labeled as “resistance.” Conversely, Russian attacks are condemned as “aggression.” Yet Russian soldiers, too, are human beings with families. The tears of victims—whether Ukrainian or Russian—carry the same weight. To portray only one side as a “tragedy” is to forfeit true fairness.

■ Japan’s Role

As a nation of peace, Japan must not limit its stance to military aid. Instead, it should advocate for ceasefire, dialogue, and transparency in postwar reconstruction. Extending the war only multiplies casualties and inevitably invites mistrust and fatigue from the international community. Japan’s role is to remain sober, to avoid leaning toward either side, and to continue pressing the question of “who bears the responsibility to end this war.”