THE PREMIERE on February 28th of a new staging of “Macbeth” at the venerable Franko theatre in Kyiv was initially eclipsed by the diplomatic disaster unfolding the same day between Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump in the White House.
Since then the production has become the talk of the city’s elite. Ivan Urivsky, the director, says he decided to put on the tragedy after sensing a change in the country’s mood since Mr Trump’s election four months earlier.
He had wanted to stage “Midsummer Night’s Dream”, a comedy, he says: “But you can’t do theatre without thinking about politics, war or the people watching.” His viewers are drawing parallels between Shakespeare’s characters and current events.
For some, Macbeth resembles the bloodthirsty dictator in Moscow. For others the story of ambition, power and treachery feels closer to home.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, former U.S. President Donald Trump, and Russian President Vladimir Putin have all made notable statements or shifts regarding elections in Ukraine, influencing the ongoing discourse on the country’s democratic processes. Zelensky, initially hesitant about holding elections during wartime due to logistical and security concerns, recently signaled openness to the idea if international assistance is provided. This marks a pivot from his earlier stance, reflecting the pressures of maintaining democratic legitimacy amid conflict.
Trump, known for his controversial statements on Ukraine, has previously criticized U.S. involvement in the region but has also expressed support for democratic institutions globally, including elections. His evolving rhetoric on Ukraine’s political future showcases the interplay between domestic and international politics as he eyes another potential presidential run.
Putin, on the other hand, has consistently used Ukraine’s political landscape as a tool in his broader narrative against the West. While Russian actions in Ukraine have undermined its sovereignty, Putin’s recent comments on the need for stability in the region could be interpreted as an indirect acknowledgment of the importance of elections, albeit likely framed to serve Moscow’s agenda.
These shifts highlight the complex and often contradictory positions world leaders take on Ukraine, underscoring the broader geopolitical stakes at play in ensuring its democratic resilience.
