The Two Sauls

A PROLONGED CONFLICT

The prolonged conflict between Russia and Ukraine has been marked by the unyielding stances of both President Vladimir Putin and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, each resolute in their vision for the future of their nations. The war between the two countries have become a brutal tug-of-war between two immovable visions. On one side, President Vladimir Putin demands sweeping territorial concessions—most notably, full control of Donetsk and Luhansk—as the price of peace, dismissing any ceasefire that doesn’t serve Russia’s strategic ambitions. On the other, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy stands firm, refusing to cede a single inch of Ukrainian soil. For him, surrendering territory isn’t just a political compromise—it’s a betrayal of Ukraine’s identity and a dangerous invitation to future aggression.

But the war between Russia and Ukraine has become more than a geopolitical clash—it’s a battle for survival between two leaders unwilling to loosen their hold on power. Vladimir Putin has signaled that he will rule until his final breath, with ambitions that reach far beyond Ukraine’s borders. His iron resolve has drawn sharp warnings from Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who insists that any softening toward Putin would be dangerous.

Zelenskyy himself remains defiant, up to now, refusing to surrender a single inch of Ukrainian territory. His stance is not only a fierce defense of national sovereignty but a reflection of his own fight to preserve authority and legacy amid relentless pressure. For both men, the war is no longer just about land or diplomacy—it’s a personal crucible, where the fate of their nations is intertwined with their own political endurance.

Both leaders have been locked into long-term visions for their nations and a personal desire to hold onto power at all costs.  President Trump’s bold push for face-to-face negotiations between Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy—bolstered by key European allies and anchored in promises of security guarantees—has breathed new life into a diplomatic process long frozen by war and personal ambition. Though his strategy sparks debate, the mere act of rallying global leaders around high-stakes summits marks a dramatic shift, reigniting hope that dialogue, not destruction, might finally chart a path to peace. But will it be successful?  What stands in the way?

TO RULE OVER ASHES

Throughout history, the image of a leader ruling over their country’s ashes has echoed across civilizations—a haunting metaphor for power gained or maintained at the cost of destruction. From emperors who razed cities to suppress dissent, to revolutionaries who inherited nations shattered by war, the throne has often been built atop ruin. Whether through civil strife, conquest, or ideological purges, rulers have found themselves presiding over broken economies, displaced populations, and scorched landscapes. The paradox lies in the pursuit of control: in securing dominance, some have dismantled the very foundations they were meant to protect. This pattern reminds us that leadership without foresight can turn triumph into tragedy, leaving behind not legacy, but rubble.

“An evil man will burn his own nation to the ground to rule over the ashes.” – Sun Tzu

The stubbornness of Putin and Zelenskyy is just one of many examples throughout history where the pride of a leader made way for pain and suffering of their people.  A clear biblical example is that of King Saul.  King Saul’s stubbornness, as described in the Bible, mirrors the rigid leadership styles seen in modern figures like Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy. King Saul, once chosen by divine guidance, gradually became consumed by pride and fear of losing power, ignoring prophetic counsel and making impulsive decisions that led to national instability. Similarly, Putin has clung to a vision of restoring Russian dominance, even at the cost of widespread destruction and international isolation. Zelenskyy, while hailed as a symbol of resistance, has also been criticized for refusing to compromise or pursue peace talks that might threaten his political standing. In all three cases, the refusal to yield or adapt has prolonged conflict and deepened division, revealing how personal ambition and fear of losing control can override the greater good.  Because of these parallels; we, at least for now, have two modern day Sauls who are following the same destructive path King Saul took so many years ago…

WHO WAS KING SAUL

King Saul emerged as ancient Israel’s first monarch at a turning point in its history, when scattered tribes sought unity under a single crown. Towering and charismatic, Saul hailed from the tribe of Benjamin and was divinely chosen by the prophet Samuel—his kingship sealed by the people’s acclaim at Gilgal. His early rule blazed with triumph: crushing the Ammonites and holding the line against the Philistines, Saul rallied the tribes and fortified Israel’s defenses like never before. But the glory faded. Haunted by disobedience and consumed by envy toward the rising David, Saul’s reign unraveled, ending in a tragic battlefield death.

TWO SAULS

Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy, though locked in fierce opposition on the world stage, echo the tragic arc of King Saul of ancient Israel—a leader whose relentless pursuit of power ultimately consumed both his reign and his people. Putin, like Saul, rose amid national turmoil, forging his authority through military dominance and a carefully crafted image of invincibility. His refusal to yield, even as Russia reels from economic sanctions and battlefield setbacks, mirrors Saul’s descent into paranoia and rebellion against divine counsel. Both men, convinced of their historical destiny, have clung to power while their nations absorb the cost of prolonged conflict and growing internal fractures.

Zelenskyy, once hailed as a beacon of democratic hope, now walks a path eerily reminiscent of Saul’s final chapter—where leadership becomes indistinguishable from war. His steadfast refusal to cede territory, though rooted in patriotic conviction, has coincided with sweeping wartime powers: extended martial law, delayed elections, and the silencing of dissent. Just as Saul’s fear of losing his crown led him to reckless decisions and estrangement from prophetic guidance, Zelenskyy’s authority appears increasingly tethered to the continuation of war. In both cases, the line between national defense and personal preservation has blurred, casting a shadow over the noble ideals that once defined their rise.

THE WARNING

Had King Saul listened to godly counsel and obeyed the commands delivered through the prophet Samuel, his reign could have ushered in a golden era of unity, strength, and divine favor for Israel. His early victories against the Ammonites and Philistines showed promise—proof that with humility and obedience, Saul could have solidified a lasting dynasty. Instead of being consumed by insecurity and pride, he might have mentored David, embraced prophetic guidance, and led his people with wisdom and grace. The kingdom could have flourished under his leadership, with Saul remembered as a foundational figure of Israel’s spiritual and political rise.

But Saul’s story took a darker turn. His repeated defiance of divine instruction—offering unauthorized sacrifices, sparing enemies God had commanded him to destroy, and obsessively hunting David out of jealousy—revealed a heart more concerned with control than with covenant. As his grip on power tightened, his connection to God unraveled. The Spirit of the Lord departed from him, and he was tormented by fear and paranoia. Isolated and desperate, Saul ultimately fell on his own sword during a disastrous battle with the Philistines, marking a tragic end to a reign that began with such promise. His downfall stands as a sobering reminder that leadership without humility and obedience can lead even the chosen to ruin.

Is there a modern-day warning for Putin and Zelenskyy?  President Trump’s recent diplomatic maneuvers—first with Vladimir Putin in Alaska, and then with Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Washington D.C.—unfold like a modern echo of the biblical tragedy of King Saul, who ignored divine warnings and paid the ultimate price. To understand why I view these as divine warnings, read “MAGA: Making America Godly Again” post.

In Alaska, Trump hailed his summit with Putin as “extremely productive,” securing tentative commitments toward a ceasefire and issuing stern warnings of “very severe consequences” should Russia continue its aggression. The meeting, while controversial, marked a rare moment of direct engagement that momentarily shifted the tone of the conflict. Now, Trump is convening a three-way summit, drawing Zelenskyy into a framework built on security guarantees and European cooperation—a bold attempt to break the diplomatic deadlock and in turn delivering a warning to both Putin and Zelenskyy that ending the killing comes before personal ambition and the immovable visions they have for themselves and their countries.

CONCLUSION

For more than three relentless years, war has scarred the land between Russia and Ukraine—shattering families, leveling cities, and leaving behind a trail of grief too vast to measure. The moment has come for President Vladimir Putin and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to confront a truth larger than politics: peace will not be born from battlefield victories or hardened egos, but from the courage to lay down ambition and lift up humanity. Whispers of a potential end to the war being brokered by President Trump stirs cautious hope, as the world watches two men with the power to end the bloodshed. Every day of delay deepens the pain, calcifies resentment, and risks sowing division that could last generations. The true test of leadership now is not who holds the upper hand—but who dares to extend it. To choose dialogue over dominance, life over legacy, and finally, to end the killing.

Beneath the surface of these high-stakes talks lies a cautionary tale. Just as Saul, driven by pride and fear, refused to heed the prophet Samuel’s warnings and ultimately fell in battle—his kingdom shattered and his legacy stained—Putin and Zelenskyy now stand at a similar crossroads. Both leaders have shown a fierce determination to retain power, even as their nations bleed from the cost of war.

President Trump’s summits serve as a kind of modern prophecy: a final call to choose peace over pride, compromise over control. If ignored, the consequences could mirror Saul’s fate—leaders undone not by enemies, but by their own refusal to let go. History has a way of repeating itself, and it rarely forgives those who mistake stubbornness for strength.