Opinion : Ukraine Facebook of War

kyivpost.com · Feb 27, 2026 · Collected from GDELT

Full Article

The war that was supposed to last a few weeks, at the most, is now grinding into its fifth year – with no ceasefire in sight. In the course of these 1,461 days, nearly everything generations have taken for granted about the political world order has been put into question, stood on its head. To say we are witnessing a geopolitical sea change would be an understatement. Sometimes, a cursory look at the faces that have come and gone can give a sense of just how different things are.JOIN US ON TELEGRAMFollow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official. The 800-pound gorilla Let’s start with the 800-pound gorilla in the room: US President Donald Trump. In little over a year in office, he has proven to be a wrecking ball like no other president in living memory. If Joe Biden was well-intentioned but overly cautious in his dealings with Putin and Ukraine, then Trump is just recklessly venal. The jury is still out as to whether any lasting good has come of his disruptive inclinations. But as far as Ukraine is concerned, he is the disaster that pessimists before the election were preaching he would be. There may be no iron-clad proof that Trump is a conscious Russian asset, but he unquestionably behaves like one: from filling his cabinet and coterie with incompetent figures spewing Russian propaganda talking points (viz. Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Hegseth, Steve Witkoff, et al.) to embellishing the White House with a picture of himself alongside Vladimir Putin on the red carpet in Alaska, where Trump genuflected to a man who has clearly been “playing him.” Other Topics of Interest ‘They Took Our Names’: Ukrainian POW on Torture, Mock Executions, and 2 Years Without Sunlight Four years into Russia’s full-scale war, Ukrainian POW Oleksii tells Kyiv Post how he survived Russian captivity for one reason: his newborn daughter. Much digital ink has been emitted about how Trump has undermined the rules-based order established after World War II, through which the United States became a bulwark against Soviet imperial ambitions, a champion of capitalistic free-trade – and, in the process, especially once the Cold War “was won,” the global hegemon. Now, after a year in office, the debate is turning to whether any of that order can ever be restored. Perhaps one silver lining behind Trump’s ascent, for Ukraine at least, is the fact that his on-and-off threats to abandon NATO have put a little fire under the butts of European leaders who have grown complacent, preferring to act as technocratic caretakers pandering democratically to their fickle constituencies rather than leading Europe through a serious crisis. It’s Zelensky’s face that has become the emblem of a generational fight against tyranny. Which brings us to Europe There once was a man who they say saved Europe – or at least the euro. His name is Mario Draghi. He buoyed the euro with his “Whatever it takes” remark in 2012 while he was the president of the European Central Bank. When Russia launched its full-scale invasion on Feb. 24, 2022, Draghi was the prime minister of Italy. He was never elected. Rather, following one of Italy’s habitual government crises, he was chosen by the president to lead a technocratic government. He governed well, perhaps too well. His economic plan entailed some austere measures, and the same two parties critical of aid to Ukraine – the Five Star Movement and the League – combined forces to oust Draghi in a no-confidence vote. Meeting between Italian and Ukrainian heads of government, Mario Draghi and Volodymyr Zelensky on June 16, 2022. (Photo PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY Official website) Now, not just ironically, some are calling on Draghi to lead Europe into a fresh federated construction, which Draghi has already spelled out. Today Italy is led by a sincerely pro-Ukrainian Giorgia Meloni. The problem with Meloni is that she is beholden to some extent to anti-Ukrainian elements in her own party, such as Matteo Salvini. She has also been informally stumping for anti-Ukrainian illiberal figures such as Hungary’s Viktor Orban and garnering a lot of criticism at home for her overly cozy relationship with Trump. In the past four years, the United Kingdom seems to have taken a page from Italy’s book of fallen governments. The UK has seen a dizzying series of new faces come to power. Boris Johnson was there at the full-scale invasion’s outset, one of Ukraine’s most stalwart supporters who encouraged President Volodymyr Zelensky not to capitulate. Then came Liz Truss, then Rishi Sunak (all Conservatives), and now the Labour Party’s Keir Starmer. Whatever differences these prime ministers may have in their own domestic politics, the UK appears to have remained Ukraine’s staunchest supporter, both militarily and politically. Similarly, the Baltic and Scandinavian states have undergone political power transfers that have not affected their hard line with respect to Russia. In fact, in the past four years, with NATO expansion to Finland and Sweden (in the face of Putin’s lament about NATO expansion eastward), the Baltic Sea has become a NATO lake. France, too, has remained a steadfast supporter, with Emmanuel Macron a surprisingly stable leader (though that could change with the next election in spring of 2027). On the eve of the full-scale invasion, Macron was still under the illusion that Putin could be reasoned with. Today, he harbors no such illusions. Today, Macron – along with Poland’s Donald Tusk – is probably one of the fiercest accusers of Putin and his imperial ambitions. Yet the European leader who offers Ukraine the most hope – as well as being a solid Putin and Trump critic – is Germany’s Friedrich Merz. There seems to be a no-nonsense pragmatism to the German chancellor’s approach to Berlin’s role in a new Europe clearly threatened by Moscow’s belligerence. That pragmatism is now being translated into a military-industrial build-up that should, under normal circumstances, terrify the world. Fortunately for Ukraine, much of that build-up is in cooperation with Kyiv and aimed at keeping the Russians from ever reestablishing their sphere of influence in Europe. Merz understands that it would be naïve to think Moscow intends to limit its sphere of influence to Eastern Europe. He is aware of Putin’s “useful idiots” in Germany, particularly in the far-right Alternative for Germany party. Likewise, in France, Italy, the UK, and many of the smaller EU countries, Moscow indirectly funds any party that might spark divisions and crises within the EU. But the biggest boil on Europe’s “brave face” with regard to Ukraine’s resistance over the past four years has been one rather robust figure who won’t go away: Viktor Orban. A more ardent anti-Ukrainian Putin shill would be hard to find. Kyiv can only hope he loses the upcoming elections in April. For Putin, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the USSR was not a defeat; it was merely a tactical withdrawal. What about the Axis of Evil – and its bankroller? Chinese President Xi Jinping looks more and more like a permanent fixture, deftly playing as many sides of the equation as possible in his attempts to guide China’s seemingly inexorable rise to the status of superpower comparable to the US. North Korea’s Kim Jong Un is also firmly in place. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who will soon be 87, may not be there much longer (not if Trump decides to launch his threatened regime-change aerial bombing campaign), but for now, Iran and its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps provide an immovable support column for Russia’s war on Ukraine. Which leaves us to the most obvious catalyst of this geopolitical sea change: Putin himself. So much has been said and written about Putin in the past 26 years that it now sounds like white noise on deaf ears. At the risk of joining the chorus of ignored voices, suffice it to say that Putin does not accept the general consensus that Moscow lost the Cold War. The Soviet Union, as an iteration of the Russian Empire, may have dissolved, but Russia, in his explicitly stated view, will prevail. In other words, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the USSR was not a defeat; it was merely a tactical withdrawal. Putin is clearly playing the long game, betting that Europe will tire and America will lose interest. Most Russians, though ambivalent about their war on Ukraine, sympathize with how Putin frames Russia’s “mission” as an existential battle for civilizational supremacy. Hence, they are willing to slog on through what is perceived as a counterattack after the withdrawal of the late 1980s and early 1990s. One man who understands There is at least one man who understands Putin’s “long game” approach: Volodymyr Zelensky. Others may also understand, but it’s Zelensky’s face that has become the emblem of a generational fight against tyranny. Notwithstanding the carousel of advisors and ministers often playing musical chairs in his wartime government, Zelensky is still there, still feisty, still refusing to surrender either Ukraine’s security or dignity. There are many in Ukraine who criticize their president – some more vocally than others – but it would be hard to find anyone who doesn’t recognize the man as an extraordinary leader in a make-or-break moment in Ukrainian history. Today’s Ukrainians are all well aware of how often in their history they have nearly been broken – erased as an identity, like so many waves of people sweeping across the steppes before them. And, of course, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Zelensky himself will be replaced – even in the midst of this perilous sea change. But Ukrainians know that it’s the spirit of what Zelensky’s face represents, rather than the face itself, that will lead them through the sea change. The spirit of resistance, a righteous quest for freedom and dignity that dazzles in the face of those bent on crushing it. The views expressed in this opinion article are the au