Staff Reports
Since 2014, the saga of Ukraine and Russia has played out like a tragic sitcom, largely fueled by miscalculations and missteps from various administrations—most notably, the Obama administration. When Russia brazenly invaded Crimea, the most potent response from the White House was a weakly worded tweet proclaiming the world’s solidarity with Ukraine, lavishing it with a hashtag as if that would miraculously turn the tide. Spoiler alert: it didn’t. Fast forward past ineffective responses from subsequent administrations, and here we are in 2023, with a conflict that feels more like a long-winded soap opera than a decisive military endeavor.
Under Trump’s watchful eye, the potential for a swift resolution was unmistakable. Unlike the current administration, which seems hell-bent on an endless conflict, Trump advocated for an immediate end to the skirmish. He didn’t see Ukraine as a pawn in a grand geopolitical chess game but rather a valid nation that deserved peace. Meanwhile, Biden’s administration sold the American public a bill of goods, claiming that leaking intel would scare Putin off, as if the Russian president ever took American leadership seriously—hint, he didn’t. Instead of deterring an invasion, this theatrical display of “intelligence sharing” served as an invitation for Putin to invade in the first place.
While Ukraine valiantly fought back with a series of counter-offensives that temporarily gave them the upper hand, the reality on the ground began to shift. Despite Ukrainian forces managing some initial victories, the war transformed into a slog, one that waged on while the Biden administration seemingly twiddled its thumbs. The military advantages swung back in favor of Russia, which held onto territory like a stubborn kid gripping his last cookie. Instead of calling for peace when the iron was hot—and Ukraine was on the battlefield with leverage—Biden allowed the grind to continue. The administration’s policy seemed to prioritize a weakened Russia over a peaceful Ukraine, making it clear that the U.S. doesn’t hold the same stakes in the region it once did.
Europe, meanwhile, has contributed its own brand of absurdity to the situation, boasting about its support for Ukraine while simultaneously financing Putin’s war machine through gas payments. Picture leaders shaking hands with one side while handing cash to the other. If they were truly invested in bringing about peace, they would cut off all energy supplies to Russia. But instead, they engage in a charade that gives the impression of action without any real impact. They’ll flash a victory sign while continuing to send lifeblood to Russia. It’s strategic hypocrisy at its finest, leaving Ukrainian fighters with one hand tied behind their backs.
— Clark, Clarence (@BigCBreeze54) March 3, 2025
Additionally, environmentalist hysteria further complicates the matter. The “green energy” movement has taken aim at American energy production, mouthing unintelligible platitudes about electrification. If these climate crusaders aren’t careful, they might just back themselves into a corner where they are seen as unwitting allies of Russia, who isn’t exactly sweating the impact of rising gas prices in the West. Established leaders that once revered former Soviet leaders for their environmental initiatives have become the best friends Putin never knew he wanted, tying their hands and blinding them to the military realities at play.
As the world watches this drawn-out conflict, the critical questions remain unanswered. America is not equipped for a prolonged proxy war—with both fiscal and military resources stretched to their limits. Trump’s insistence on peace and negotiations, however unpopular with the establishment, offers a glimmer of practicality in a complex situation. The U.S. should be looking for rare earth minerals deals or alternative partnerships instead of dragging itself into a strategy that seems destined for a dead end. It’s time to confront the reality: Ukraine cannot dictate the terms of a conflict that demands American funding and military support. If Europe is willing to bicker over their welfare programs instead of funding the fight, it’s clear they’d prefer to let the Americans handle the messy business of confronting Russia. In the end, stability—if not peace—should be the foremost concern.
