Many countries may be called commie but I think the older generation with enough experience knows what fascistic tyranny looks like. Call it whatever you like but true Communism is an idea that never fomented fully in its original concept anywhere... so what's the point of splitting nomenclature hairs? What ever name they are given is of no importance. Most if not all of the so called commie countries that get labeled as such devolve so quickly into what appears to be some form of fascistic tyranny that whatever they are called is of no practical consequence.
I just use Marxist-socialist or commie as a general term to describe those ideologies that have devolved into what we currently see as fascistic tyranny. Call it what you will, it is easy to recognize.
I noticed also that Zelensky is becoming fond of playing to the politics when he visits here. He posted in a public forum a rhetorical question to Trump that went something like, "Well, if you know how to resolve the Ukraine war please share it". If I were Trump I would have shot back immediately with something like, "Sorry Volod ole buddy, ole pal, too late. The last time I talked to you about Ukrainian corruption and issues pertaining to the US, I released the verbatim transcript of the call and was impeached for it". "You, Joe and Hunter figure it out".
That seems like a pretty legitimate question - particularly if I am leading a country in an existential war with my one of my ally's two most dangerous potential adversaries. Like Zelensky, I too am also curious how Trump plans to end the war in 24 hours. As far as I can tell, he has failed to share his international diplomacy acumen with anyone.
You and I will agree that the impeachment effort with respect Ukraine was ridiculous. But that has no more to do with our national interests than does the political party of whomever is sitting in the White House. National interests are by definition apolitical. That doesn't mean political or personal biases or decisions driven by such bias can't change how that interest is pursued, but the fundamentals remain the same.
For instance, stability in the Middle East has been an abiding national interest since the thirties - regardless of the party in control in Washington. Following 911, the neo-con driven effort to make Iraq into a pro-American Middle East bastion was embraced as a means to help achieve that goal. It was considered sufficiently compelling to trigger an invasion and occupation of the country. Instead of stabilizing the country, the Levant was thrown into twenty years of instability and Iran has become far more emboldened. But our fundamental national interests in the region have not changed, and they will not until oil is no longer a commodity capable of affecting our economic prosperity.
Likewise, this country has an abiding national interest in preventing Russia from regaining a position of prominence controlling Eastern Europe and militarily dominating Western Europe. This interest is particularly true today because of a resurgent Russia's potential alliance with China. In bilateral talks prior to the Olympics, Xi essentially green-lighted the Russian invasion of Ukraine. From the perspective of Chinese interests, an ascendant Russian military power in Europe would be a distraction, perhaps even decisive threat, to the United States and of course Europe, enabling China to pursue its goals unhindered in the Pacific. That is true regardless of who occupies the White House.
Indeed, it is hard to imagine an administration less capable of decisively opposing Russia than the current one - unless it would be the Trump administration. My concern with Trump is that the personal seems far more important to him on many issues than what is in the actual interests of this country.
Zelensky, in what I think has proven a Churchillian effort, has effectively fought a great power to a standstill while managing the political distractions offered by the 31 member states of NATO, the EU, and, of course, the United States. Trump, on the other hand, seems obsessed with Zelensky's failure to involve himself in what was and remains a US internal political issue. By definition, that is a form of pettiness and self-indulgence that hardly furthers this country's international goals and objectives.