Content warning: This article discusses war and invasion and mentions Nazism.

On February 24, 2022, Russia launched a full-scale military invasion of Ukraine. Three years later, it had become the bloodiest conflict on European soil since the end of World War II. 

Sources have a wide range of estimates, but since 2022, Russian military casualties have been estimated between 167,100 and 234,600, while Ukrainian military casualties range from 43,000 to over 70,000. 

By the start of 2025, Ukraine had recorded over 12,000 civilian casualties with over 3.7 million internally displaced, while Russia had recorded  388 civilian casualties by 2025. According to a US congressional document, Russian troops outnumber Ukrainian troops by nearly three to one. 

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine came eight years after the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Vladimir Putin framed the invasion under the pretext of “denazification.” This claim draws on Russia’s historical role in defeating Nazism during World War II and attempts to link the current Ukrainian government to nationalist groups that collaborated with Nazi occupiers in the fight for Ukrainian independence from the Soviet Union. 

Upon Ukraine’s resistance, international states began supplying military aid. If support is measured monetarily — which I believe must be in times of war — no country has provided more assistance than the US. By the end of 2024, US aid reached 114.12 billion euros, nearly seven times the 17.26 billion euros provided by Germany, the second-largest contributor. 

Over the past three years, the West’s support for Ukraine has fluctuated but has generally remained strong.

With Donald Trump’s return to the US presidency, however, I already see a seismic shift in American policy on Ukraine. I argue that this change, involving pressuring Ukraine to relinquish access to valuable natural resources, aims to make Ukraine functionally dependent on the US. 

Ukraine’s history has been defined by a struggle for independence and a self-determined national identity. Where Russia has historically posed the most immediate threat to Ukrainian sovereignty, I see America’s foreign policy as another attempt by a global power to exert control over Ukraine, albeit through different means. 

Dispute at the Oval Office

The February 28 White House meeting exemplifies the US’ shift in policy about Ukrainian aid. The meeting involved Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump, and US Vice-President JD Vance, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio with the purpose of potentially signing a deal that would grant the US significant access to Ukraine’s natural resource deposits. The scale of this deal is unimaginable. 

As The Telegraph described, the deal will be a “US economic colonisation of Ukraine, in legal perpetuity.” 

The meeting was a disaster. In a small room filled with American press, Trump and his team took turns humiliating Zelenskyy, chastising him for — among other things — not wearing a suit and not expressing enough gratitude for US support. Rubio later also criticized Zelenskyy for being “antagonistic,” questioning whether he truly wanted a peace agreement. 

Under the Biden administration, US aid to Ukraine peaked, though it never reached levels that could decisively shift the war’s outcome. In my opinion, the stalemate benefits the US. As Russia pours resources into the war, it faces not only financial strain but also a devastating demographic toll from casualties among its population of men. By spending just a fraction of its military budget, the US is able to isolate Russia on a global scale.

Later in 2024, as Trump campaigned for reelection, he promised to end the war in Ukraine. Once in office, I’ve witnessed him and other conservative pundits beginning to craft a compelling narrative. 

It seems to me like today’s US rhetoric suggests that Ukrainian resistance is a lost cause. It’s also clear from Vance’s and Rubio’s comments toward Zelenskyy that they believe Ukraine has been ungrateful and that Ukraine should accept whatever deal is offered, given the invasion’s deteriorating conditions. 

These conditions are particularly exemplified by the Kursk region of Russia, which Ukrainian forces occupied in August 2024 in a flash offensive to use as a bargaining chip come negotiation time but have since continued to suffer continued territorial and personal losses to Russia.

Next steps for Ukraine

If the resource deal is signed, America’s economic dominance over Ukraine could easily extend into policy-making, granting the US significant influence over Ukraine’s political landscape. To me, the stranglehold the US will have over Ukraine’s economy could be incomparable to the influence of a straightforward military occupation. 

In my mind, Ukraine is trapped. It either continues a war it is likely to lose without US support, leading to further demographic devastation and worsening the already dire internal displacement crisis, or it gives up so much control of its economy to the US that it would be hard to meaningfully call Ukraine independent. 

With the exception of an unprecedented increase in financial support and material donations from Europe, there does not seem to be a third alternative where Ukraine does not emerge from the situation as the definitive loser.

I have no ‘advice’ for my fellow Ukrainians or the Ukrainian government that doesn’t amount to hoping for a biblical miracle. During phone conversations with my grandmother, who lives in Kharkiv — just a 30-minute drive from the Russian border and only about a 30-second flight time for Russian missiles — the war is hardly mentioned. There truly is not much one can say. If anything, perhaps there is some value in simply being aware of the situation’s dire nature. 

I do feel that I am in a good position to offer recommendations to those whose lives have not been affected by war. See your family as much as you can, tell your friends you love them, and hold on to everything dearly. Every moment is precious beyond measure, and one never knows how much they have until it is ripped away. 

There is no greater evil than one which lies in the hearts of men, but nowhere else does one find such a true and beautiful love for life and all those in it. What stands out most to me from my communication with friends and family still in Ukraine is their passion for life itself and how strongly they encourage me to seize every moment to the greatest extent I can. For those of us lucky enough not to bear the burdens of war, take every day as a gift. 

As a child, my nanny would tell me stories of her own childhood, how vividly she remembers hiding under an umbrella during the Nazi bombing of Kharkiv because she was terrified of the sounds of explosions. I’d like to conclude with a translation of a message she sent me in May 2024 while she was spending time at her home in the village: 

“Live a full life. Embrace every day in its entirety, leave nothing for later. Look how everything can change, where nothing depends on you.” 

Oleksii Varlamov is a third-year student at St. Michael’s College studying philosophy. He is the secretary of the Philosophy Course Union and an International Affairs columnist for The Varsity’s Opinion section.