I am afraid, you may have a point.
Presidents first trade was acting, and showbusiness.
This does not mean much, but is indication.
For example, successful president mr Ronald Reagan was actor too, and (western) history records him in very positive light, with one aircraft carrier named after him.
How history, will remember Zelensky, we will see.
Ukrainian president calls for Russia to be recognised as a "terrorist state" in a speech to the Commons.
www.bbc.com
As he was quoting incomparable Winston Churchill in congress: I may add following - Neville Chamberlain (who believed in peace agreement with Hitler, till last moment) declared war to Germany, but history remembers Winston Churchill, as THE pm of the empire in that historical moment.
Zelenskyis comparing himself witth Churchill by such speech. (but it worked, media followed the idea till now)
However there are some minor historical differences between the two.
While Zelensky was actor and comedian till suddenly finding himself in presidential role, Churchill was preparing himself from young age for what the history will bring him in next century, and then he excelled in statesman's role.
Churchill, whose family traditionally was political, graduated in Sandhurst, military school not with idea of military carrier, but with genuine belief that one day he will lead the country, but to have
moral background for this, he first must serve the country in the army, see all the empire and its colonies, and only then to seek a position in parliament elected from his constituency.
His family pulled the strings to get him in the army, he then joined the army on his own expense. and he made extra money as war correspondent.
He personally fought wars in Afghanistan, Sudan, and South Africa - Boer wars.
He pushed for campaign in Gallipoli in 1914 as first lord of admiralty, which led to disaster in turkey. and his resignation in 1915
In 1916, on his request he took lower command position on battlefield in Belgium, surviving the experience by pure luck, and after 6 months returned to Uk, to run war campaign in house of commons having very good idea what the war is. (I am not aware of any politician today, ready to leave the chair, and volunteer for war duty)
He travelled the collonies in peace time between the wars.
His eventual failures in ww1 in Turkey, made him loose political popularity at that moment, but he kept to his beliefs, and worked hard to become statesman during the worlds truly darkest moment, of ww2, twenty years later.
I am pretty much sure, Zelensky never fired a weapon in his private life, and he had anti gun political agenda before the war.
Thus, biography of Zelensky is incomparable to Churchills, and speech in congress at least without taste. But, it worked, on daily news.
What Zelensky is actually doing is excellent PR and propaganda campaign.
As a result, of such efforts, the country is now on good infusion from west.
Is it enough?
We will see.
The main question remains: who will win this war?
And...
What winning the war means, to each side?
