Why Ukraine Fights

 

By John Spencer

Recently, Elon Musk posed a haunting question: “Why are Ukrainians still dying?” He’s not alone in asking. A growing chorus of skeptics argues that Ukraine has no hope of victory against Russia — so why keep fighting?

The answer is simple, yet timeless: because freedom is worth dying for.

I first visited Ukraine just weeks after Russian forces were driven from the outskirts of Kyiv in 2022. The world had expected Ukraine to collapse within days. Instead, civilians — many with no military training — stood against one of the world’s most powerful armies and defended their capital. I walked the devastated streets of Bucha, where I saw the cost: civilians — elderly, women — tied up and executed. These weren’t soldiers. These were people whose only crime was being Ukrainian.

What I saw wasn’t just war. It was a declaration.

Ukrainians had looked into the eyes of subjugation and said “No.” No to tyranny. No to genocide. No to being pulled back under Russia’s imperial shadow. They chose to fight — not because it was easy or winnable in traditional terms, but because the alternative was unacceptable.

Some argue this war is only about four regions in eastern Ukraine, home to many Russian speakers. But that’s a dangerous distortion. This war didn’t start over disputed territory. It began with a full-scale invasion aimed at seizing Kyiv and toppling the Ukrainian government. Russia didn’t just send tanks to Donetsk. It sent them to the capital.

And let’s not forget: Russian-speaking Ukrainians are not asking to be “liberated.” Many are fighting and dying for Ukraine — their country — in uniform and out. The claim that this war is simply about protecting Russian speakers ignores the fact that under the Soviet Union, the Ukrainian language was outlawed, and Ukrainian identity actively suppressed. Russia’s current campaign is a continuation of that erasure.

Since that first visit, I’ve returned to Ukraine many times. From Kyiv to the front lines, I’ve seen the same thing: a nation of people — teachers, farmers, students, grandparents — fighting to remain free. This is not a divided country. It’s a united one.

And the threat to its survival is real. Thousands of Ukrainian children — including babies — have been abducted from occupied territories and sent to Russia. Many have been adopted by Russian families, stripped of their names, their language, and their history. This is not collateral damage. It’s a calculated effort to erase a nation.

History is full of moments when nations fought not because they were sure of victory, but because they knew what was at stake. In 1776, American revolutionaries faced the British Empire — the most powerful military force in the world — and still pledged “their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor” in the Declaration of Independence. In 1940, with Europe falling and Hitler’s armies approaching, Winston Churchill refused appeasement and rallied Britain with the words, “We shall never surrender.”

Ukraine’s war is not just about Ukraine. It is a defining test of whether the world still believes in the principles that underpin international order: sovereignty, the rule of law, and the rejection of conquest by force. If Ukraine falls, it won’t just lose its freedom. The idea that small nations have a right to exist — even next to larger, more powerful ones — will be dealt a devastating blow.

It is also personal. Ukraine is not just a neighbor of Russia. It is older than Russia. Kyiv was a thriving center of culture and trade when Moscow was still a forest outpost. The idea that Ukraine is somehow not a “real” country is not only false — it is the ideological basis for Russia’s war of destruction.

So yes, Ukraine continues to fight. Not because it is easy. Not because it is guaranteed. But because surrender would mean ceasing to exist as a free nation. And every day, Ukrainians are making the choice to stand and resist.

To those who wonder why they are still fighting, I offer another question: What would you do if it were your home, your children, your freedom, your nation’s survival — on the line?

Because for Ukrainians, it is.

 

John Spencer is chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute (MWI) at West Point. He served for 25 years as an infantry soldier, which included two combat tours in Iraq. He is the author of the book Connected Soldiers: Life, Leadership, and Social Connection in Modern War and co-author of Understanding Urban Warfare

Anonymous Issues Warning to Elon Musk and Donald Trump

 

The hacktivist group Anonymous, renowned for its efforts to expose corruption and government misconduct, has released a video accusing Donald Trump and Elon Musk of conspiring to undermine democracy.

 

In their statements, Anonymous highlights Trump's close ties to Vladimir Putin as a significant concern, labeling their "cozy phone calls" and shared campaign slogans as indicators of possible collusion. The group further critiques Musk's involvement in the U.S. government's "Department of Government Efficiency," claiming he is "pulling the strings" while "slashing public programs and consolidating power."

 

According to Anonymous, the combination of Trump's relationship with Putin and Musk's actions creates a "perfect storm for democratic destruction." A central claim made by the group is that Trump and Putin are executing what they term "Project Russia," a plan detailed in a series of books by Yuriy Shalyganov written between 2005 and 2010. These works advocate for the destabilization of Western democracies and position democratic nations as adversaries.

 

Anonymous asserts that Musk's maneuvers, alongside Trump's rapport with Putin, reflect "textbook moves" outlined in this controversial playbook. The group encourages the public to unite against what they perceive as a grave threat to democracy, stating, "This is one battle humanity cannot lose."

Understanding "Trump Derangement Syndrome": A Look at a Controversial Term

 

Republican state lawmakers are set to introduce a new bill proposing that “Trump Derangement Syndrome” is officially defined as a mental illness.

Five Minnesota Senators are due to propose the legislation to the Health and Human Services committee on Monday, March 17, 2025.

The bill’s authors Eric Lucero, Steve Drazkowski, Nathan Wesenberg, Justin Eichorn, and Glenn H. Gruenhagen, described the faux “syndrome” as the “acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal persons that is in reaction to the policies and presidencies of President Donald J. Trump.”

Symptoms include “Trump-induced general hysteria,” where a person struggles to distinguish between “legitimate policy” and “psychic pathology,” which is expressed with verbal hostility or acts of aggression against Trump and his MAGA supporters, according to the proposed legislation.

 

The term "Trump Derangement Syndrome" (TDS) has become a common, albeit highly contentious, phrase in political discourse, particularly since Donald Trump's rise to prominence. It's used, often pejoratively, to describe what some perceive as an irrational and obsessive negative reaction to Trump, his policies, and his supporters. However, the very existence and validity of TDS are hotly debated, with many arguing it's a dismissive label used to shut down legitimate criticism.

 

Origins and Usage:

 

While the term's exact origin is debated, it gained traction in conservative media and online circles during Trump's presidency. Proponents of the idea suggest that TDS manifests as:

• Extreme emotional responses: Over-the-top anger, anxiety, and distress triggered by anything related to Trump.
• Irrationality and cognitive dissonance: An inability to objectively assess Trump's actions or policies, leading to illogical arguments or double standards.
• Obsessive focus: A preoccupation with Trump that dominates conversations, social media activity, and even personal relationships.
• Unfounded accusations: Making claims about Trump or his supporters that lack evidence or are based on conspiracy theories.
• Dehumanization: Viewing Trump supporters as inherently bad or morally deficient.

Those who use the term often point to examples such as:

• Intense, unwavering opposition to any policy supported by Trump, regardless of its potential merits.
• Public displays of outrage and protest, sometimes perceived as disproportionate to the issue at hand.
• The proliferation of negative memes, articles, and social media posts targeting Trump.

 

Criticisms and Counterarguments:

 

The concept of TDS is widely criticized for several reasons:

• Medical Invalidity: TDS is not a recognized medical or psychological condition. It's a political term, not a clinical diagnosis.
• Dismissing Legitimate Concerns: Critics argue that labeling someone as having TDS is a way to avoid addressing valid criticisms of Trump's behavior, policies, or rhetoric. Many believe that concerns about Trump's presidency were based on genuine fears about democratic norms, social justice, and international relations.
• Political Weaponization: The term is often used to silence dissent and delegitimize opposing viewpoints, creating a toxic and polarized environment.
• Hypocrisy: Opponents point out that similar accusations of "irrational hatred" could be leveled against Trump supporters who vehemently opposed previous presidents like Barack Obama or Joe Biden.
• Normalizing Abnormal Behavior: Some argue that Trump's own actions and statements were often so outside the bounds of traditional presidential behavior that strong reactions were understandable and even necessary.

 

The Underlying Reality: Political Polarization and Emotional Investment:

 

Regardless of whether one believes in TDS as a specific phenomenon, it's undeniable that American politics is deeply polarized. Strong emotional investment in political outcomes is common, and the intensity of feeling surrounding Trump was particularly high, both for his supporters and his detractors.

Several factors contributed to this:

• Trump's Unconventional Style: His confrontational rhetoric, use of social media, and disregard for traditional political norms generated strong reactions.
• Deep Partisan Divisions: Existing political fault lines were exacerbated during his presidency.
• Social Media Echo Chambers: Online platforms often reinforce existing beliefs and amplify extreme viewpoints.
• The Perception of High Stakes: Many voters felt that the future of the country was at stake, leading to heightened anxiety and passion.

 

Conclusion:

 

"Trump Derangement Syndrome" is a controversial and politically charged term. While it may describe some instances of excessive or irrational behavior, it's crucial to recognize that it's not a medically recognized condition and that it's often used to dismiss legitimate criticism and stifle political debate. Understanding the term and the strong reactions to the Trump presidency requires acknowledging the deep political divisions and emotional investments that characterize contemporary American society. Rather than resorting to dismissive labels, engaging in respectful and fact-based dialogue is essential for navigating these complex issues.