UKRAINE: 1,000 Days of Bloodshed – Why Victory is Crucial!

Today marks the 1000th day of war since Russia launched it's horrid, full-scale invasion in Ukraine. I would like too dive into a big topic that’s been buzzing since Trump’s election: the question of supporting Ukraine. Recently, there’s been a lot of talk that Trump might push for a quick peace deal that could leave Ukraine in a tough spot. Rumors suggest this deal could involve Ukraine giving up territory, stepping back from NATO goals, and accepting a shaky ceasefire that might not hold up.

In this post, we’ll break down what such a deal could mean for Ukraine’s future and look at some alternative approaches. My goal here is to get readers thinking about why ongoing support for Ukraine matters and why standing with them until a real solution is reached is so important. 

Let’s remember that thousands of Ukrainians have sacrificed their lives in this war, allowing us in the West to enjoy peace, freedom, and the hope of a brighter future. For their sake, if there’s any doubt about the value of supporting Ukraine, let’s at least be open to considering alternative perspectives. Their sacrifices deserve more than a dismissal of this aid as a "waste"; they deserve our respect and our thoughtful commitment.

 

TRUMP'S PEACE PLAN

Let’s get straight to the point: Trump claims he can bring peace to Ukraine in just 24 hours. But to put it mildly, most of the world isn’t buying it. The idea of a quick fix seems far-fetched, especially given what both Putin and Zelenskyy might actually accept.

Rumor has it that Trump’s plan involves some serious concessions for Ukraine, like delaying NATO membership for at least 20 years and setting up a huge demilitarized zone, around 800 kilometers long. There will be European forces stationed there to enforce it, not US troops. In return, Trump would agree to continue supplying weapons to Ukraine—but only if Europe foots the bill.

In a nutshell, Trump’s approach seems to shift the financial and defense responsibility for Ukraine onto Europe, as he views the war as none of the U.S.’s concern. But he’s missing the bigger picture here: the stakes of this conflict reach far beyond Europe.

WHY IS THIS UNITED STATES' PROBLEM? THE WAR IS IN EUROPE!

Yes, the war may be happening in Europe, but as I’ve emphasized before, no country today operates in isolation. The world is far too interconnected for the U.S. to remain unaffected by a conflict like this.

First, there’s the trade impact: Europe is one of America’s largest trading partners, and if Europe’s economy takes a hit, that directly affects American businesses and jobs. The financial ripple effects would be significant. Secondly, China—currently the U.S.’s main geopolitical rival—is watching closely. If Putin succeeds in Ukraine, Xi Jinping may feel emboldened to move on Taiwan, leading to even more instability.

Beyond these immediate concerns, there are broader issues of global stability and democratic values at stake. If authoritarian regimes see that aggression goes unpunished, it risks a breakdown in the post-World War II international order, which has largely kept conflicts contained and economies interdependent. The erosion of this order would have severe implications for U.S. national security, potentially leading to a world where military force rather than diplomacy becomes the primary means of conflict resolution. This is why I don't understand how future Vice-President Vance can say that Ukraine is Europe’s problem.

Donald J. Trump, 47th President of United States

 

BIDEN REACTED, BUT IT'S TOO LATE

This week’s headline-making news is that U.S. President Joe Biden has finally authorized Ukraine to use ATACMS for strikes within Russian territory. While this long-awaited decision is a positive development, it comes with two notable drawbacks. 

First, the timing is far from ideal. The optimal moment for such support would have been in August, during the launch of Ukraine’s Kursk offensive. While the assistance will still be valuable, its impact is now limited compared to what it could have been earlier. Second, the authorization is restricted to strikes within Kursk Oblast, which curtails Ukraine's strategic flexibility. For long-range weaponry to be truly effective, Ukraine needs the freedom to deploy them across a wider range of targets.

On a brighter note, France and the United Kingdom have also stepped up, granting Ukraine access to long-range weapons such as the UK’s Storm Shadow missiles. However, Germany remains a glaring exception. Chancellor Olaf Scholz continues to block the provision of Taurus missiles, which boast the longest range among the available options. Once again, Germany appears to be dragging its feet—compounded by reports of Scholz reaching out to Vladimir Putin by phone last week. 

In the fight for Ukraine’s sovereignty, timeliness and commitment are paramount, and the need for cohesive Western support has never been clearer.

WHAT WE SHOULD DO WHEN IT COMES TO UKRAINE 

I know that what we should do, what we will do, and what we must do can be three entirely different things. But ideally, we should remove all restrictions, provide Ukraine with everything they need, and support them all the way to victory. For example, Poland could monitor the skies over Ukraine, especially in the western regions where bombings are frequent.

Beyond that, NATO should consider deploying troops for training purposes in Ukraine. If North Korean troops are present, then Putin has already chosen to escalate this war. We shouldn’t be so afraid of escalation ourselves.

The so-called “red lines” have been proven meaningless time and again. Trump is driven by his own interests and bottom line, and I don’t think we need to turn against America just because some American politicians lean hostile toward Europe. While it might sound counterintuitive, it’s important to maintain some goodwill with Trump. At the same time, we can’t let him push us around.

Leaders in Germany and France should stand firm with Trump and make clear that Ukraine is crucial and deserves our full support. We should also consider being more assertive in our own policies—for instance, by imposing reciprocal tariffs or ramping up our defense production within Europe, rather than relying so much on the U.S.

In addition, Europe must recognize this as an opportunity to reduce its dependency on American support by strengthening its own military and economic alliances. Countries like Germany, France, and Poland should take the lead in developing a robust European defense strategy, one that’s prepared to act independently if necessary. This approach would ensure that Europe is never caught off-guard by fluctuating U.S. policies and that it remains a reliable partner in global security, regardless of American political shifts. A strong, unified Europe can help counterbalance aggressive states while demonstrating to Ukraine and others that the principles of democracy and sovereignty will be actively defended.

WHAT ELSE TO SAY?

I don't want to be repetitive, and I don’t really have much more to say other than this: let’s hope Trump wakes up before he gets to office and understands that it’s difficult to survive as a country in these globalized times alone. America itself can’t be isolated; it’s essential in maintaining global order and stability.

The war in Ukraine and the conflicts in the Middle East are both key issues tied to Trump's interests. He even allegedly told Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, that he wants their conflict resolved by the time he takes office. This fixation on quick results suggests that Trump may be more concerned with appearances than with achieving meaningful, long-term solutions.

When it comes to Ukraine, both the perception and reality of actions matter deeply. Any hint of Trump aligning with Putin could spell disaster, particularly for Europe, where the consequences would be most immediate. If the U.S. pulls back support for Ukraine, it could embolden aggressors worldwide, creating a power vacuum that risks destabilizing not only Europe but also the global landscape. America must act not just for appearances, but with a sense of responsibility, to prevent a spillover of instability that would ultimately affect everyone.

CONCLUSION

In today’s interconnected world, the U.S. cannot afford to ignore conflicts in Europe and beyond, as shown by the war in Ukraine. A weakened European economy would impact American businesses, and U.S. disengagement could embolden rivals like China. Some leaders, like future Vice-President Vance, argue that Ukraine is "Europe’s problem," but this stance overlooks the global economic and strategic risks if Russia succeeds. The U.S. and its allies should support Ukraine with the resources needed to counter aggression and uphold global stability. Simultaneously, European countries like Germany and France might consider developing a more independent defense approach to protect their interests.

With another Trump presidency possible, there are concerns about America’s commitment to its global role. Trump’s focus on appearance over substance, as seen in his remarks about resolving the Israel conflict by his inauguration, casts doubt on his grasp of complex international challenges. For Ukraine, symbolic support isn’t enough; America must act decisively to prevent Europe from becoming vulnerable to authoritarian expansion. If the U.S. falls short, it risks not only European security but also a breakdown in the global order, threatening stability far beyond Ukraine’s borders. Through meaningful engagement, the U.S. can help build a world where democratic values, not force, shape the future.

We cannot afford to give up on Ukraine in the West. Their courageous stand today is a shield that keeps us from facing even greater sacrifices tomorrow. While we may provide financial aid now, the cost of allowing Putin to succeed could be measured in our own lives and freedom down the line. 

The choice is clear: invest in peace and stability today, or risk paying a far heavier price in the future. Which is truly more costly?