The international community has a tendency to simplify wars into narratives of good versus evil. In the case of Ukraine, the narrative is readily available: Putin is the aggressor, Zelenskyy the tragic hero, and NATO the alliance of righteousness. Yet, the longer the conflict drags on, the more it exposes the uncomfortable realities of international politics – the cynical calculations of great powers and the tragic powerlessness of smaller nations, all masked by the rhetoric of morality.
The Amorality of War: Western Contradictions
In March 2022, peace talks in Istanbul seemed to offer a glimmer of hope. Reports from outlets like the Financial Timessuggested Ukraine was prepared to consider neutrality, shelving the disputes over Crimea and Donbas in exchange for a Russian withdrawal. Russia, in turn, hinted at accepting Ukraine's eventual EU membership. However, the momentum abruptly shifted, with Ukraine hardening its stance and vowing to reclaim all lost territory.
What triggered this change? Former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, in his memoirs, admitted to travelling to Kyiv and urging Zelenskyy not to concede to Putin, promising sustained Western military aid. Foreign Policy magazine also analyzed the Biden administration's initial ambiguity towards Ukraine (e.g., reluctance to provide long-range weapons) as a strategic choice to prolong the war and weaken Russia – bleeding Moscow dry while avoiding direct confrontation with Putin.
This exposes a core absurdity: While Ukraine's resistance is undeniably legitimate, when "supporting justice" becomes a pretext for geopolitical maneuvering, bloodshed becomes a calculable cost. The West, while brandishing the banner of morality, has been cautious in its military assistance. Europe, while voicing solidarity, has struggled to ramp up its ammunition production. Only with the faltering Ukrainian counteroffensive has the true cost of this "proxy war" become apparent.
Trump's "Realism": Why It Rattles the West
Donald Trump's recent claim that Zelenskyy "started the war" has been widely condemned as apologetics for Putin. However, within its context, his statement refers to the missed opportunity for peace in March 2022. He argues that accepting a neutrality agreement then might have averted hundreds of thousands of casualties.
This perspective, while controversial, is not entirely without merit. The Economist has analyzed the Biden administration's strategic contradiction: wanting to weaken Russia but hesitant to allow a decisive Ukrainian victory (e.g., delaying the provision of F-16 fighter jets until 2023). This half-hearted support has contributed to the war's protracted nature, eroding Western public support.
Trump's "realism" is essentially transactional: Instead of indefinite military aid, pressure Ukraine to compromise and offer "no NATO expansion" in exchange for Russian concessions. This may seem callous, but it reflects a growing weariness among American voters. For many, Ukraine is a "distant war," while inflation and border security are immediate concerns.
Ukraine's Dilemma: Sovereignty vs. Survival
Ukraine's tragedy lies in being both a victim of aggression and a pawn in a great power game. Zelenskyy's choices are agonizing: Signing a neutrality agreement in 2022 might have saved lives but would have carried the historical stigma of appeasement. Choosing to fight on requires Ukrainian lives to fill the void of unfulfilled Western promises.
More cruelly, Ukraine's instrumental value is diminishing. While the EU has approved billions in aid, cracks are appearing in the commitment to long-term funding. Regardless of who wins the US presidency, future aid to Ukraine will face greater scrutiny. As long as the West views Ukraine as an "investment," its support will be tied to perceived "returns" – and current battlefield data suggests a failing investment.
Beyond the Morality Play: Facing Reality
Criticizing Trump or Biden is easy. The real challenge is whether the international community can find a balance between upholding sovereignty and ending the bloodshed.
Insisting on the complete restoration of Ukrainian territory as the sole measure of justice condemns Ukraine to fight to the last man. Imposing a "humiliating peace" risks emboldening future aggression. Perhaps the only way forward is to acknowledge the stalemate and pursue a less-than-ideal ceasefire – a temporary freeze on territorial disputes, internationally supervised Russian withdrawal, and a new European security architecture in exchange for Russian concessions.
This is imperfect, but history demonstrates that most wars end not with the triumph of justice, but with exhaustion. Ukraine needs not more rhetoric, but honest international dialogue, however uncomfortable it may be.