KYIV — It was May 9, 2025, and Ukraine was commemorating Victory Day, the 80th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, a triumph to which Ukrainians made a decisive contribution. Under the glittering golden domes of the cathedral, however, and beyond the thriving bustle and celebration in the St. Michael’s Square of Kyiv, the holiday was darkened by a haunting context: thousands of portraits of Ukrainian fighters killed in the war against Russia, arranged as a “forest of memory” and draped with red roses by sobbing relatives. These images serve as a reminder that for Ukraine, the triumph on the horizon is an echo only; the present moment is one of unrelenting war and an uncertain fate determined by changing international allegiances.
Veteran Washington Post commentator David Ignatius chronicled this poignant moment in an op-ed, giving us a glimpse into Ukraine’s resolve as it reacts to President Donald Trump’s most recent call for a ceasefire and obvious turn toward Moscow. Drawing on Ignatius’s powerful reporting and supplemented by further geopolitical context, this article considers Ukraine’s unshakable resoluteness, the ethics and strategic dilemma of the war, and the international diplomatic stakes for a rapidly reshaping world.
A Nation Forged In Defiance
The atmosphere, as Ignatius describes it, is one of cautious but unshaken resolve. On his last visit, September 2024, Ukraine appeared to be “bled out,” battered by relentless Russian onslaughts and wavering Western backing. Eight months later, the tide has been reversed. Battlefronts have been stabilized, aided by a transfusion of European backing that has offset declining U.S. support during Trump’s second term. Former Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, speaking at the Kyiv Security Forum, encapsulated this renewed resolve: “We are bruised, but we are not broken. We are tired, but we are not exhausted.”
This insouciance pervades the daily life of Kyiv, even on the brink of war. Ignatius shares a telling anecdote over dinner for Ukrainian lawmakers at a restaurant that serves Crimean Tatar specialties. As air raid sirens wailed, warning against the threat of ballistic missile and drone strikes, the Ukrainians continued eating—eating through dumplings, grape leaves filled with rice and meat, and roast duck over a white cream sauce. “Ballistic threat. Take immediate cover,” one warning blared, followed by another, warning against unmanned aerial vehicles. The diners, however, paid them little attention, their sangfroid an act of defiance against chaos outside. That evening, a ballistic missile exploded next to a residential complex, and drone strikes continued, but the defiance never wavered. As parliament member Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze scolded her American visitors, “You don’t have the right to be tired. We need your weapons. We need your help. We are going to hold on. That’s not an option.”
The Harsh Reality Of Warfare
The Ukrainian government is too accustomed to military reversals they are facing. Russian drone production has boomed over the past year, and small front-line drones and larger Iranian-developed Shahed drones fueled assaults across the country. Defense officials indicate that Russia has no noticeable personnel or morale shortage, and President Vladimir Putin believes he is gaining—a belief making him less likely to negotiate. Speaking to a delegation at the Atlantic Council, former Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba was blunt: “The war will continue until Putin understands that Ukraine has a right to exist.” The chasm between diplomatic platitudes and brutal reality on the ground, he added, is “as far apart as Earth and Mars.”
Despite Trump’s ceasefire overtures, Ukrainian officials are skeptical that peace is possible except under intense pressure on Russia. Ignatius continues that top officials are convinced that Putin will back down only if Trump sanctions impose sharply increased costs on continuing aggressions. Ukrainian officials are prepared to pursue a two-track path—a ceasefire to avert immediate hostilities, what Kyiv wants, and talks on long-term issues, what Moscow was demanding. A presidential advisor to President Volodymyr Zelensky told Ignatius’s team the next six weeks would be telling, whether Ukraine survived another war spike, or maybe without U.S. support, or a cautious move toward peace.
Moral Issues Surrounding the Conflict
At the heart of the Ukrainian struggle is a morality that Ignatius believes is being obscured by Trump’s diplomacy. Ukraine is fending off an unprovoked, mass attack—a sovereignty violation Admiral Rob Bauer, former chairman of the NATO Military Committee, called a battle between “good and evil.” The same theme was explored by Yatsenyuk at the Kyiv Security Forum, warning that indifference and staying out of this war is complicity. Trump’s pursuit of fairness, Ignatius posits, is perilous for prolonging the war by declining to recognize beneath it this morality asymmetry.
The failure to send U.S. politicians and military officials to the Security Forum in Kyiv was a disappointing withdrawal. As German, Canadian, Dutch, and Latvian generals and admirals joined NATO panels, the absence was a stunning one to Ignatius and to everyone. The absence is a chilling one, however, at a time when Ukraine needs the most assurance about Western solidarity. Ukrainians are practical, and they optimistically welcomed Trump’s recent criticisms about Russian obstinacy and his threat to impose sanctions if Putin is unwilling to negotiate.
A Long-Term Vision: “Israelizing” Ukraine’s Defense
Beyond the present crisis, Ukrainian elites are projecting a decade of independence. A Zelensky advisor and other politicians pushed an “Israelization” of Ukrainian military doctrine, projecting the country as a place where “every man and every woman” was trained and equipped to be secure. That would take a decade, however, and Ukraine will need consistent American or European support until then. The threat of diminished U.S. support under the Trump administration increases the pressure for that transformation, since Europe is still not ready to make full compensation for Washington’s withdrawal.
The broader geopolitical context makes Ukraine’s situation more complicated. Trump’s transactional approach to international policy and movement toward withdrawal from U.S. international commitments has left allies like Ukraine insecure. Europe’s increased support—financial, military, and training initiatives—at the same time, however, reflects a common acceptance that the continent must assume increased security responsibility. The asymmetrical tempo of European integration and varying degrees among EU members, however, pose obstacles to the long-term sustainability of Ukraine’s war effort.
Diplomatic Impacts on Global Affairs
The war between Ukraine and Putin is more than a regional conflict; it’s a test for the international order. Putin’s invasion mocks principles of sovereignty and self-determination, and the reaction—or absence thereof—by the Western world will establish perceptions about its staying power. Trump’s policy, lamented by Ignatius as strategically flawed, risks undermining the reputational capital of the United States as a world leader. By ending the war quickly, at the expense of an equitable one, the administration is likely to send a message to other authoritarian regimes that one can be rewarded for coercion.
For Ukraine, the stakes have never been higher. The memory grove at St. Michael’s Square grows day by day, a silent rebuke to those who advise restraint or appeasement at the price of justice. Readers’ responses to Ignatius’s article, as published in The Washington Post, capture international amazement at Ukrainians’ resolve, many writing that it is better for Ukrainians to lose and resist than to surrender sovereignty. That is a view we hear within Kyiv but also within the diaspora and international supporters, who see Ukraine’s struggle as a universal validation of freedom.
A Call to the International Community While Ukraine counts its dead and looks to an uncertain future, the word from Kyiv is clear: support for Ukraine is strategic and a matter of morality. Trump must know that U.S. even-handedness will close no doors but prolong the war. In order to secure agreement from Putin, however, he must resolutely resist Moscow’s ultimatums—a contradiction starkly visible on Victory Day. The world, led by the United States and Europe, must renew its commitment to provide Ukraine the weapons, dollars, and diplomatic backing to persevere. The world looks to Kyiv, the city that knows sacrifice and courage as part of everyday experience. The memory forest stands as a reminder to policymakers and individuals everywhere never to allow Ukraine’s struggle to end as an act of futility. In Ignatius’ view, the path to peace lies in making Ukraine’s right to be stronger, and not appease Putin.
