Any observer of Russian aggression must keep in mind that Russia’s war against Ukraine began in 2014 or, frankly speaking, even earlier. Viktor Yushchenko, Ukraine’s third president, was determined to anchor Kyiv into the NATO security structure. At the 2008 NATO Summit in Bucharest, both Ukraine and Georgia sought a Membership Action Plan (the transatlantic alliance’s formal program to prepare countries aspiring to NATO membership.) Neither succeeded. Later that year, Georgia became the first victim of direct Russian aggression, when Moscow’s forces invaded and occupied part of its territory.
Then it was Ukraine’s turn – in 2014 Russia annexed Crimea and occupied part of Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region. There was little Western reaction to speak of. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022, was simply a creative continuation of the Kremlin’s imperial plan. Putin’s calculus was based on what he saw as a window of opportunity – created by the West’s refusal to act and its fear of direct confrontation with Russia.
It is impossible to comprehend Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine without understanding the geopolitical context of historical relations in this part of Europe. The Kremlin has fabricated a narrative that is a hybrid mix of tsarist Russian imperialism, Soviet mythology, and religious elements connected to Russian Orthodoxy. The vision of current Russia as a successor state that has merged tsarist imperialism with its Soviet counterpart constitutes a key element of the Kremlin’s memory policy. Full control over Ukraine is crucial to Putin’s political success, just as it was for Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany at the time of World War II.
Russia’s full-scale war on Ukraine has opened a new chapter in European history that may remind us of the events of 1939, when Nazi Germany, in cooperation with Russian dictator Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union, invaded Poland. The difference is that Poland, attacked from both sides, did not receive help from the allies who had offered Warsaw security guarantees (France and Great Britain), whereas Ukraine managed to fight back and receive some Western assistance. At the very beginning of the full-scale invasion, the most valuable and important help came from Poland. The first Western politicians who visited wartime Kyiv were members of the Law and Justice party, then the ruling political party. Poland threw open its borders, allowing Ukrainian refugees to enter the country. They were not sent to refugee camps (to the surprise of many Western visitors), but were hosted by Polish families and received in their homes.
I remember well that our house also served as a logistics center for helping incoming Ukrainians. Together with my whole family, we organized shelter, food, and clothing. Our place also became a meeting spot for my colleagues evacuated from Kyiv, as well as foreign ambassadors and diplomats who shared their views on the current situation and told their own stories of difficulty traveling out of Ukraine to Poland. I remember well our heated discussions about the recent situation and the options for how the West, Europeans, and Americans should react and help Ukraine. It was a time of overwhelming solidarity and reflection, but unfortunately – with the passing of time and the shifting winds of history – that has partially faded.
Today is the fourth anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion, following months of renewed US efforts to find a peaceful solution to this war. A few days ago, I asked Grok, an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot developed by Elon Musk’s xAI company, about the likelihood of peace being achieved anytime soon. Its reply came within a few seconds.
“As of Feb. 20, 2026, the prospects for peace in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war remain uncertain but generally low, with significant obstacles persisting despite intensified diplomatic efforts led by the United States. Negotiations have been underway since early 2025, including recent rounds in Geneva and Abu Dhabi, but no major breakthroughs have occurred.
“The US administration under [US President Donald] Trump has been pushing for a deal, aiming for a potential agreement by mid-2026 ahead of the US midterm elections. Trump has described talks as ‘reasonably close’ and expressed optimism, but European allies and intelligence officials are far more skeptical, viewing Russia’s actions as indicative of no genuine intent for peace. Recent discussions have explored compromises such as demilitarized zones in eastern Ukraine, but these have not advanced significantly.”
The AI bot also offered up a number of resources from across the media and different think tanks. Its assessment of China, which has a vital interest in keeping the Russian aggression active, was particularly interesting.
“China’s recent position on Russia’s war in Ukraine can be characterized as one of formal neutrality with a clear pro-Russian tilt,” Grok said. “Beijing has consistently avoided condemning Russia’s actions as an ‘invasion,’ instead framing the conflict as a ‘crisis’ or ‘issue’ stemming from complex historical factors, including NATO expansion and US influence… While China promotes dialogue and peace talks, its actions – such as economic support and refusal to join sanctions – have enabled Russia to sustain its military efforts, drawing criticism from the West and Ukraine.”
This is the core of the issue: without Chinese support, Russia would be losing the war in Ukraine. This shows how global interests are interconnected, and we should map all factors in order to gain a better understanding of today’s global disorder. Ukraine is an important part of the solution. Other crucial parts of the global mosaic include the Pacific front with Taiwan, the Middle East and Iran (a close ally of Russia), as well as Venezuela and Cuba, which also play important roles in this global game.
The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.