Staff Reports
This Saturday marks three years since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, igniting the largest European conflict since World War II. The war has left a devastating toll: tens of thousands dead, millions displaced, and vast swaths of Ukraine reduced to rubble. As the anniversary approaches, the world reflects on the human cost and geopolitical consequences of this prolonged conflict, while debates over the path to peace remain as contentious as ever.
Under President Donald Trump’s administration, the U.S. has taken a markedly different approach to the war compared to his predecessor, Joe Biden. Trump has prioritized direct engagement with Russia, recently initiating high-level talks in Riyadh between U.S. and Russian officials. However, these discussions notably excluded Ukraine, sparking outrage from Kyiv and its allies. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy accused Trump of being influenced by Russian disinformation after the U.S. president falsely claimed that Ukraine had “started” the war. While Trump’s strategy of pursuing dialogue with Moscow may appeal to those seeking an end to hostilities, critics argue that sidelining Ukraine undermines its sovereignty and risks legitimizing Russian aggression.
The situation on the ground remains grim. Russia controls approximately 18% of Ukrainian territory, including areas seized during its initial 2014 incursions and subsequent offensives. Despite heavy losses in manpower and equipment, Moscow appears willing to sustain a war of attrition, banking on time and Western fatigue to weaken Ukraine’s position. Meanwhile, Ukraine continues to rely heavily on Western military aid, though U.S. funding has dwindled under Trump’s administration, leaving Kyiv in a precarious position as it struggles to replenish its forces and maintain morale.
Trump’s willingness to negotiate with Russia reflects a pragmatic acknowledgment of geopolitical realities. While Biden’s strategy of unconditional support for Ukraine prolonged the conflict without yielding decisive results, Trump’s approach seeks to balance American interests with the need for stability in Europe. Critics may decry his rhetoric or methods, but his focus on achieving a durable settlement—potentially through armed neutrality or security guarantees for Ukraine—offers an alternative to endless escalation.
As the anniversary looms, one thing is clear: peace will not come easily or quickly. Both sides remain deeply entrenched in their positions, and any resolution will require difficult compromises that satisfy neither entirely. For conservatives who prioritize American strength and fiscal responsibility, Trump’s emphasis on negotiation over indefinite military aid represents a shift toward realism in foreign policy. Whether this strategy will succeed in securing peace without sacrificing Ukraine’s sovereignty remains uncertain—but it is a gamble worth taking if it can end the bloodshed and prevent further destabilization in Europe.
