Want to get up to speed on Ukraine? We did it for you…

4 CommentsCommentary, Government, White House

The Early 2000s: A Fragile Post-Soviet State

Ukraine emerged from the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991 as an independent nation, but its early years were marked by economic struggles and political instability. By 2000, Ukraine was caught between two worlds: the West, with its promises of democracy and prosperity, and Russia, its historic neighbor with deep cultural and economic ties. The country’s leadership oscillated between pro-Russian and pro-Western factions, while powerful oligarchs—wealthy tycoons who amassed fortunes during the chaotic post-Soviet privatization—dominated its politics and economy. Eastern Ukraine, particularly the Donbas region, felt a strong affinity with Russia due to its large Russian-speaking population, shared history, and industrial ties, setting the stage for future conflict.

2004 Orange Revolution: A First Taste of Turmoil

Tensions flared in 2004 with the Orange Revolution, a mass protest against a rigged presidential election favoring pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych. The West, including the U.S., supported the pro-Western candidate Viktor Yushchenko, who ultimately won after a revote. This event highlighted Ukraine’s internal divide and Russia’s sensitivity to Western influence on its doorstep. The U.S. began to see Ukraine as a strategic buffer against Russian power, a perspective that would grow over time.

Enter Victoria Nuland and Rising U.S. Involvement

Fast forward to the 2010s, and Victoria Nuland, a seasoned U.S. diplomat with a hawkish stance on Russia, became a key figure. As Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs under President Obama (2013–2017), Nuland championed a strong U.S. role in Ukraine. Her influence peaked during the 2014 crisis, but her involvement reflected a broader U.S. policy of promoting democracy and countering Russia, which had been building since the early 2000s.

2014: The Overthrow and the Spark

In 2013, President Viktor Yanukovych, now in power and leaning toward Russia, rejected an EU trade deal under Moscow’s pressure, triggering massive protests in Kyiv’s Maidan Square—the “Euromaidan” movement. These protests, fueled by frustration with corruption and a desire for Western integration, turned violent in early 2014. Nuland was deeply involved, famously caught on a leaked call discussing who should lead Ukraine post-crisis, suggesting Arseniy Yatsenyuk (“Yats”) as prime minister. The U.S. provided financial and logistical support—some estimate $5 billion over years—to pro-democracy groups, amplifying the unrest.

In February 2014, Yanukovych fled after a deadly crackdown, and a pro-Western government took over. Russia and its supporters called it a U.S.-backed coup; the West framed it as a democratic uprising. The overthrow alienated eastern Ukraine, where many saw Yanukovych as their voice. Russia responded by annexing Crimea, a Ukrainian peninsula with a Russian majority and a key naval base, and backing separatists in Donbas, igniting a civil war.

The Minsk Accords: A Shaky Truce

To halt the fighting in eastern Ukraine, the Minsk Accords were signed in two phases: Minsk I in September 2014 and Minsk II in February 2015. Brokered by France and Germany, with Russia and Ukraine as signatories, they aimed to grant autonomy to Donbas, hold local elections, and restore Ukraine’s border control—all while maintaining its territorial integrity. However, both sides accused each other of violations. Ukraine resisted full autonomy, fearing it would give Russia a permanent foothold, while separatists, backed by Moscow, demanded more power. The accords reduced violence but never resolved the conflict, leaving a simmering stalemate. Later, leaders like Germany’s Angela Merkel admitted Minsk was partly a stalling tactic to buy Ukraine time to arm itself.

Oligarchs and Corruption: A Kleptocratic Cancer

Throughout Ukraine’s post-2000 turmoil, oligarchs—like Ihor Kolomoisky, Rinat Akhmetov, and Dmytro Firtash—wielded near-feudal control, turning the country into a textbook kleptocracy where wealth and power fused into a corrupt stranglehold. These tycoons, who snapped up state assets in the chaotic 1990s, didn’t just dominate media, energy, and steel—they often bankrolled rival political factions, exacerbating instability. Kolomoisky, for instance, funded Zelensky’s rise but also armed militias post-2014, blurring lines between business and warlordism.

Beyond legal empires, many oligarchs dipped into Ukraine’s “shadow economy”: human trafficking networks thrived under their protection, funneling vulnerable people westward, while drug routes—especially for heroin and synthetic opioids—flourished through Black Sea ports they controlled. Firtash, tied to shady gas deals with Russia, epitomized how oligarchs siphoned billions from state coffers, with estimates suggesting they looted up to $100 billion since independence. Post-2014, the new government vowed to dismantle this system, but corruption proved sticky—oligarchs adapted, cozying up to Western aid flows while dodging reforms. This entrenched rot weakened Ukraine’s ability to unify against Russia, leaving it a nation not just at war with its neighbor, but with its own predatory elite.

Zelensky’s Rise: Hope and Hardship

In 2019, Volodymyr Zelensky, a comedian with no political experience, won the presidency in a landslide, promising peace with Russia and an end to corruption. He inherited a divided nation and a stalled war in Donbas. Early on, he faced pressure from the U.S. when President Trump, in a 2019 call, urged him to investigate Joe Biden’s son Hunter, linked to the Ukrainian energy firm Burisma. Trump briefly froze $400 million in military aid, sparking his first impeachment. Zelensky navigated this diplomatically, avoiding outright criticism of Trump, but it underscored Ukraine’s dependence on U.S. support.

Zelensky’s Tarnished Halo: Cars, Properties, and Persecution

Despite his everyman image, Zelensky’s tenure hasn’t been as spotless as he portrays. Rumors swirl about his personal enrichment—posts on X and reports allege he or his family acquired luxury assets, like a $150 million hotel in North Cyprus, a French vineyard, and a Florida beachfront property, all funded by murky means amid war. While hard evidence is scarce – and to be fair, could be Russian misinformation – these claims fuel perceptions he’s benefited from the “gravy train” he’s accused of riding.

More concretely, his government’s crackdowns raise red flags: in 2023, American journalist Gonzalo Lira died in Ukrainian custody after criticizing Zelensky’s war policies, with X users and critics alleging torture and murder—a charge Kyiv denies, citing health issues. Zelensky also banned opposition parties, shuttered churches, and centralized media control, moves branded dictatorial by detractors like Trump and echoed on X. His 2024 sanctions on ex-president Petro Poroshenko further stoked accusations of political revenge, painting a leader whose democratic sheen hides authoritarian streaks and personal excess.

2022: Russia’s Full-Scale Invasion

By 2021, Russia amassed troops near Ukraine, alarmed by its growing NATO ties—promised in 2008 but never realized—and Zelensky’s refusal to fully implement Minsk. On February 24, 2022, Vladimir Putin launched a full-scale invasion, aiming to topple Zelensky’s government and “denazify” Ukraine. Russia expected a quick victory, but Ukraine, bolstered by years of Western training and arms, fought back fiercely. Eastern Ukraine became a brutal battleground, with cities like Mariupol devastated. Putin’s move was partly driven by fears of losing influence over a region he saw as historically Russian, especially Donbas and Crimea.

U.S. Support: A Lifeline with Limits – And a Biden twist

The U.S., under Biden, rallied NATO to provide Ukraine with billions in aid—over $60 billion by 2025—including Javelins, HIMARS, and Patriot systems. Nuland, now Under Secretary of State, pushed for robust backing, warning that Putin’s success would embolden autocrats globally. Yet, Biden hesitated on escalatory steps like long-range strikes into Russia or a no-fly zone, fearing a direct NATO-Russia clash. Europe contributed too, but Ukraine often felt it got just enough to survive, not win.

According to RFK Jr., Joe Biden sent Boris Johnson to Ukraine to force Zelensky to tear up a peace deal that had already been agreed upon with Russia.

NATO’s Double-Edged Sword: Promise and Peril

NATO’s role in Ukraine’s troubles stretches back to 2008, when the alliance’s Bucharest Summit declared Ukraine and Georgia “will become members” someday—a pledge that thrilled Kyiv but enraged Moscow, which saw it as an existential threat. Russia’s 2014 Crimea annexation and Donbas war were direct responses, with Putin citing NATO’s eastward creep as justification. Post-2014, NATO ramped up training—over 10,000 Ukrainian troops by 2022—and exercises near Russia’s borders, like Defender Europe, but stopped short of full membership, wary of Article 5’s mutual defense clause triggering war with Russia. Zelensky pushed hard for accession, especially after 2022, with his 2024 “Victory Plan” demanding an invitation by year’s end. NATO’s 2023 Vilnius Summit offered a vague “irreversible path” instead, frustrating Kyiv while arming it with advanced weapons like Storm Shadows.

Critics argue NATO’s half-measures—dangling membership without delivering—provoked Russia without fully protecting Ukraine, a view Trump echoed in 2025, calling it “Biden’s bait.” For Putin, NATO’s specter remains the war’s core casus belli, while Ukraine sees it as its ultimate shield, leaving the alliance a polarizing linchpin in the conflict.

Eastern Ukraine’s Russian Soul

Eastern Ukraine’s Russian-speaking population, especially in Donbas, has long felt culturally and linguistically tied to Russia. After 2014, many supported separation, seeing Kyiv’s post-coup government as hostile. Russia exploited this, arming separatists and, in 2022, claiming to “protect” these communities. The invasion intensified this divide, though Ukraine’s resistance showed a growing national identity, even in the east.

The Cost

  • Ukrainian Military Deaths: 65,000–100,000
  • Russian Military Deaths: 150,000–200,000
  • Ukrainian Civilian Deaths: 13,000–30,000 (Russia reports negligible civilian losses, under 50, mostly in Kursk).

These ranges reflect the fog of war—precise counts are impossible without transparent data, which neither side provides. The tolls underscore a grinding conflict with no end in sight, dwarfing post-WWII losses for both nations (e.g., Soviet Afghanistan: 15,000 over 10 years).

2024–2025: Trump, Zelensky, and U.S. Tensions

Donald Trump’s 2024 re-election shifted the dynamic. Trump, skeptical of prolonged aid, has boasted of a “good” relationship with Putin and, in late 2024, spoke to both leaders, claiming he could end the war fast—possibly by pressuring Zelensky to cede territory. Zelensky, pushing a “Victory Plan” for NATO membership and more arms, clashed with Trump’s approach, reportedly making “nasty aspersions” in private. Trump mocked Zelensky publicly in early 2025, accusing him of prolonging the war. This spat reflects Trump’s desire for a quick deal versus Zelensky’s insistence on full sovereignty.

In January 2025, Vice President JD Vance met Zelensky in Munich, signaling continued U.S. engagement, though with Trump’s “America First” lens. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also visited Kyiv, discussing economic aid as Ukraine’s economy teeters, with 100% of tax revenue now defense-driven.

Today: A Nation on the Brink

As of February 20, 2025, Ukraine’s troubles stem from decades of East-West tug-of-war, internal corruption, and regional divides. Nuland’s role amplified U.S. intervention, the 2014 overthrow lit the fuse, Minsk failed to douse it, and Zelensky now balances survival and sovereignty. Oligarchs still lurk, eastern Ukraine remains a fault line, and Russia’s invasion grinds on. U.S. support, once unwavering, wavers under Trump, leaving Zelensky navigating a perilous path as the war nears its third year.