ESSAY: 1,569 Days — What the Length of Ukraine's War Tells Us About European Civilization

1,569 days: longer than the First World War

On June 11, 2026, journalist Constant Méheut of the New York Times wrote it plainly: the war in Ukraine has officially lasted longer than World War I. 1,569 days — more than four years and three months. The Great War, the one that left millions dead in the trenches of the Somme and Verdun, had lasted 4 years, 3 months, and 14 days (1,568 days). Ukraine has now passed that threshold. With, to date, approximately half a million dead according to the most common estimates — roughly half the military casualties of World War I.

This is not merely a statistic. It is an invitation to reflect on what duration means, what it reveals, what it demands. World War I was supposed to be "the war to end all wars" — it ended nothing and sowed the seeds of the second global conflict. The war in Ukraine, which Putin believed he could finish in days, has stretched beyond four years, revealing something fundamental about Ukrainian determination, about the nature of Russian power, and about Europe's responsibility to its own history.

The war that was supposed to last "a few days"

In February 2022, when Russian tanks crossed the Ukrainian border from the north, east, and south, everything suggested a short war. Western intelligence services forecast the fall of Kyiv within 72 hours. Financial markets prepared for rapid negotiations. Putin himself believed — or pretended to believe — that Ukraine was an "artificial state" with no real national identity, whose population would welcome Russian soldiers as liberators.

Four years later, Russian troops have not reached Kyiv. Ukraine holds. It suffers immensely — hundreds of thousands of soldiers killed or wounded, millions displaced, cities reduced to rubble, energy infrastructure systematically bombed. But it holds. And in this persistence, there is a lesson that Europe must hear, understand, and never forget.

I pause on this number: 1,569 days. I pause because it represents 1,569 mornings on which Ukrainian soldiers rose to go to the front, 1,569 nights on which families slept dressed in their basements, 1,569 days of grief, resistance, rage, and hope. Statistics never do justice to this human reality. But sometimes, putting numbers in perspective is the only way to begin to understand.

What the two wars have in common

The parallels between the Ukraine war and World War I are striking and documented. Both are wars of attrition — in the Donbas, advances are sometimes measured in 75 meters per day according to analysts, a pace recalling the centimetric progress of the trenches of 1914-1918. Both see the emergence of new technologies that redefine combat: aviation and tanks in 1914-1918, drones and electronic warfare in 2022-2026. Both involve massive casualties for negligible territorial gains.

A Ukrainian soldier who went only by the call sign "France" — in homage to his service in the French Foreign Legion — told the New York Times: "I had thought it might last maybe two or three years, and politicians would find a deal." This disorientation at the war's uncontrollable duration recalls the letters of French soldiers in 1914 who believed they would "be home by Christmas."

What radically distinguishes the two wars

But the differences are equally important. World War I was a war between empires — the British, French, German, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman empires competing for spheres of influence in a colonial world. The war in Ukraine is fundamentally different: it is a national resistance war by a democratic country against an imperialist invasion. Ukraine is not trying to conquer Russia — it is trying to expel Russian forces from its territory and preserve its right to exist as a sovereign nation.

This moral distinction is not secondary — it is central. It explains why international support for Ukraine has been able to hold over more than four years despite the "war fatigue" that has set in across some Western countries. It is easier to support a legitimate national resistance than an imperialist war between great powers — even if it is never entirely easy.

The comparison with World War I is analytically useful, but it can also create false moral equivalences. In 1914-1918, both sides bore their share of responsibility. In 2022-2026, there is an aggressor and a defender. Russia invaded Ukraine. Not the other way around. This fundamental moral asymmetry must always remain at the center of the analysis, even when examining military and tactical aspects.

What a people at war reveals about itself

Long wars reveal the character of peoples. The Great War revealed Europe in all its industrial brutality and blind nationalism. World War II revealed the capacity of organized bureaucratic evil — and the capacity of peoples who refuse domination to resist. The war in Ukraine reveals something different: the real-time birth of a national identity forged in resistance.

Putin had theorized that Ukraine was not a real nation — that its people were culturally and historically Russian, that its state was an artificial post-Soviet construction, whose population would welcome Russian soldiers as liberators. Four years of war have produced the exact opposite of what his theory predicted: a Ukrainian identity stronger than ever, a cultural and linguistic demarcation from Russia that the war has made irreversible for generations, and a civic mobilization of an intensity Western democracies have not seen since World War II.

The figures of civic mobilization

Ukrainian resilience is not merely a metaphor. It is documented in concrete numbers. Despite massive military casualties — estimated at several hundred thousand soldiers killed and wounded — Ukraine has maintained a recruitment and mobilization capacity that surprised all observers. Ukrainian defense industries adapted to the war, now producing domestically drones, munitions, and defense systems that Kyiv was buying abroad in 2022. Ukrainian civil society — volunteer organizations, troop support logistics, international fundraising networks — played a crucial role in supporting the war effort.

About half of Ukrainians, according to surveys cited by the New York Times, doubt the war will end before next year. But this same majority refuses to surrender. This is not denial — it is a lucid grasp of the conflict's probable length, combined with a determination not to let suffering lead to capitulation. It is an impressive collective political maturity.

Ukrainian resilience poses a personal question I must put on paper: would I be capable of such endurance? Would we in France, Belgium, Canada, respond with the same determination if tanks invaded our borders? I do not know. And this uncertainty about myself makes me all the more admiring — and indebted — toward the Ukrainians who answered yes, every single day, for 1,569 days.

The broader chronology: 2014 or 2022?

The count of 1,569 days conventionally begins on February 24, 2022 — the day of the full-scale invasion. But as the New York Times notes, "many Ukrainians argue that the current conflict began in 2014, when Russian forces seized control of Crimea." If we start from 2014, the war has lasted more than 12 years — far longer than World War I or World War II. This perspective matters: it places the war in Ukraine in its long-duration context, as a Russian colonial conflict against a people resisting for more than a decade.

The eight years of the Donbas war between 2014 and 2022 had already caused tens of thousands of deaths and forged the military backbone that would allow Ukraine to resist in 2022. Officers who had learned combat in the trenches of Donetsk in 2015 were commanding brigades in 2022. This continuum is crucial for understanding why Ukraine held where many had predicted its rapid collapse.

What occupied territory reveals about the war

As of June 26, 2026, Russia still occupies approximately 18% of internationally recognized Ukrainian territory — including Crimea annexed in 2014 and the territories seized since 2022 in the Donbas, and the regions of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, and Kharkiv. This occupation is the cold military reality behind the symbols of duration. Reconquering these territories, if possible, would take more years and immense resources.

Ukrainian Ambassador to the UN Andriy Melnik recently declared that Russia "will never keep the occupied Ukrainian territories" — a firm statement of principle. The operational reality is more nuanced: Ukrainian advances have been slow, decisive breakthroughs rare, and positional warfare appears to have set in along hundreds of kilometers of front. But history shows that seemingly frozen front lines can break suddenly — as in September 2022 when Ukraine liberated significant territories in the Kharkiv region in just days.

I am careful not to let myself be trapped by the "war fatigue" I sometimes detect in my own thinking — the temptation to normalize the situation, to accept Russian occupation as a fait accompli because it has lasted so long. Duration does not legitimize injustice. Crimea occupied since 2014 is still illegally occupied Ukrainian territory. And the fact that we have stopped saying it with the same energy as in 2014 is a moral failure of the West.

Without the West, Ukraine would have lost

A truth must be stated that Ukrainian nationalists sometimes acknowledge reluctantly but that is documented: without military and financial aid from the West, Ukraine would in all likelihood have lost. Not necessarily militarily on the battlefield — Ukrainian determination is real and would have produced costly resistance regardless of circumstances. But economically, Ukraine would not have been able to maintain its functional state, pay its soldiers, fund its hospitals and schools, or import the necessary weapons.

The United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Poland, and others have provided tens of billions of dollars in aid — military, financial, humanitarian. HIMARS rockets, Leopard tanks, F-16s, Patriot and NASAMS air defense systems — all of this has directly influenced Ukraine's capacity to maintain its defenses. Western aid has not been without ambivalence or frustrating delays — but it has been decisive.

Western "war fatigue": a real risk

But the duration of the war creates a real risk: "war fatigue" in Western public opinion. Surveys in several European countries show declining support for aid to Ukraine over the years. Right-wing populist parties — in Italy, Hungary, France, Germany — use the war as an argument to reduce defense spending and seek accommodations with Moscow.

This fatigue is humanly understandable — no one enjoys hearing about a war for years. But it is strategically dangerous. If the West reduces its support for Ukraine before Russia is sufficiently weakened to accept a just peace, it rewards aggression and invites future aggressions — against the Baltic States, against Moldova, against other neighbors of Russia. Western war fatigue is Putin's principal strategic tool — waiting until the West lets go.

War fatigue affects me personally, too. After 1,569 days of alerts, tallies of destruction, negotiations that go nowhere, documented atrocities — there is a temptation to look away. I refuse to yield to it. Fatigue is human. Moral capitulation is a choice. And this choice has consequences for real people who have been fighting for their freedom for more than four years.

Half a million dead: what this figure represents

Estimates of casualties in the Ukraine war vary by source but converge on a terrible number: approximately 500,000 people killed on both sides since the beginning of the large-scale invasion in 2022. This is half the military casualties of World War I. It is also, according to available information, primarily soldiers — even if civilian victims also number in the tens of thousands.

Each of these 500,000 dead is a life, a family, a story cut short. War statistics have this terrible property of erasing the individual behind the aggregates. One must pause, therefore: mothers who buried their children. Children who lost their fathers. Entire cities reduced to rubble. Communities dispersed to the four corners of the world by exile. When one measures the scale of this suffering against 1,569 days, duration is not an abstract number — it is an infinite accumulation of individual griefs.

Russian losses: the price of imperial delusion

Russian casualties are less well documented — Moscow refuses to publish precise figures, and estimates vary. But they are considerable. Ukrainian Ambassador Melnik cited Russian losses of more than 30,000 per month. Independent Western sources converge on total estimates of several hundred thousand Russian soldiers killed or wounded. These losses represent a massive demographic and economic hemorrhage for Russia — a price that Russian society, muzzled and misinformed, is beginning to pay in silence.

These significant Russian losses fuel no satisfaction — they testify to the human waste of a war that Putin triggered through imperial delusion. Young Russians are dying in Ukrainian trenches to satisfy the ambitions of an aging man who decided that Ukrainians had no right to their own national identity. It is a tragedy for both peoples — a tragedy manufactured from scratch by the Russian regime.

I feel sadness for the ordinary Russian soldiers who died in this war. Not for Putin, not for the regime, not for the imperial ideology — for the young people sent to their deaths by a system that treats them as disposable material. Their death is also an indictment of the regime that sent them there. It is not weakness to say so — it is moral honesty.

What Ukrainian endurance means for European security architecture

The fact that Ukraine has held for 1,569 days has direct implications for the future of European security architecture. First, it has demonstrated that NATO works as deterrence — Russia has not dared to attack Alliance members, and no strike has hit the territory of a NATO member. Second, it has highlighted the need for a more autonomous European defense — if the United States reduces its engagement under Trump, Europeans must be capable of ensuring their collective security.

Third — and this may be the most important — the Ukraine war has forced Europe to look squarely at its own history and its own compromises. The years of energy dependence on Russia, the complacent "Ostpolitik" that financed the Putin regime, the arms sales that ended up being used against Ukrainians — all of this fed the aggression we have witnessed since 2022. The duration of the war is also the measure of the debt Europe must assume for its own strategic mistakes of preceding decades.

NATO enlargement: the geopolitical response to duration

The duration of the war has paradoxically strengthened NATO rather than weakening it. Finland and Sweden, neutral for decades, joined the Alliance. Defense budgets increased across Europe. Poland has become the most significant land power on NATO's eastern flank. Ukraine's membership application is formally on the table — even if its timeline remains uncertain.

These transformations are the direct product of Putin's decision to invade Ukraine. He wanted to push back NATO — he produced exactly the opposite. This is the geostrategic irony of the war: by seeking to neutralize Ukraine by force, Russia reinforced precisely the alliances and defenses it sought to weaken. This is a lesson for authoritarian regimes that believe military force alone can reorganize the world to their advantage.

NATO enlargement following the Ukraine war is one of the most delicious — and most important — ironies of recent geopolitical history. Putin launched a war to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO and to weaken the Alliance. He got an enlarged, strengthened NATO, more determined than ever. This is a strategic miscalculation of historic proportions. He deserves the outcome he created.

A language, an identity, a nation forged in fire

One of the deepest transformations wrought by the war is cultural and linguistic. The use of Russian in Ukraine — the mother tongue of a significant portion of the population, particularly in the east and south — has declined radically since 2022. Millions of Russian-speaking Ukrainians have chosen to switch to Ukrainian — a symbolic and identity-defining act of considerable significance. Parents who raised their children in Russian are now raising them in Ukrainian. Cities that had Russian-language names have been renamed.

This transformation is not Russophobia — it is the natural reaction of a people on whom membership in another nation has been imposed by force. Putin had theorized that Slavic "brotherhood" between Russians and Ukrainians was unshakeable. In reality, every bomb that falls on a Ukrainian city fractures this myth a little more. Ukraine emerges from this war more Ukrainian than it entered — which is precisely the opposite of what Moscow sought to achieve.

Ukrainian culture as active resistance

Ukrainian culture has played an active role in resistance. Ukrainian artists, musicians, writers, and filmmakers have continued to create during the war — sometimes from air raid shelters, sometimes from exile, always with the same urgency to bear witness and preserve. The bombing of the Dovzhenko film studio during the massive attack on Kyiv in June 2026 is not accidental — it is Russia's deliberate policy to destroy Ukrainian cultural infrastructure, to deny its existence as a distinct civilization.

These attacks on culture are war crimes under international humanitarian law. They are also a confession: Putin knows that Ukrainian culture is a foundation of the national identity he seeks to erase. By bombing it, he paradoxically confirms its existence and vitality — one does not destroy what does not exist.

Ukrainian culture resisting moves me deeply. A people that keeps its museums open under bombs, that builds shelters for its cultural treasures, that sends its children to school even when classes are held in metro corridors — this people says something essential about what it means to be civilized. Civilization is not the absence of war. It is the refusal to be dehumanized by war.

Two more years to surpass the duration of World War II

If the war continues — and nothing indicates it will end in the coming months — Ukraine will approach another symbolic threshold: the duration of World War II, which lasted approximately 6 years (2,191 days starting from September 1939, less if counting Soviet participation from 1941). Ukraine has approximately 600 days remaining to reach this threshold — about two years. This is not impossible. It is even probable if peace negotiations fail to produce results.

This path toward the duration of World War II is also a path toward potentially far higher casualties. Every additional month of war costs lives, wounded, trauma, destroyed infrastructure, children out of school, shattered families. The solution to this problem is not Ukrainian capitulation — which would merely guarantee the next war a few years down the road, just as the Munich failure in 1938 guaranteed World War II. The solution is a just peace that guarantees Ukrainian security and holds Russia accountable for its aggression.

What duration demands of the West

The duration of the Ukraine war demands something difficult but necessary from the West: strategic persistence. Not eruptive enthusiasm that burns out, but constant, planned, institutionalized support. This means sustainably high defense budgets. Weapons systems delivered to Ukraine on multi-year cycles rather than on an ad hoc basis. Long-term security guarantees — NATO membership remains the most credible mechanism — rather than verbal assurances easily reversed.

This strategic persistence is difficult in democracies that operate on four-year electoral cycles. It demands leaders who think twenty years ahead, not to the next election. Such leaders exist — some of them. They need the support of their publics to hold course. And publics need to be told, again and again, why 1,569 days of supporting Ukraine is not too long — and that abandoning Ukraine would be the real price to pay.

Strategic persistence — this may be the most difficult thing for democracies. Autocracies can hold a course for decades. Democracies change governments, change priorities, exhaust themselves. This is their structural vulnerability against a Putin who is betting precisely on this fatigue. The answer is not to become autocracies — it is to develop institutional mechanisms that anchor strategic commitments beyond electoral cycles.

The lessons we choose to draw — or not to draw

The history of long wars offers contradictory lessons. It says that persistence can win — Britain's resistance in 1940-1941, alone against Hitler for months, was ultimately rewarded. It also says that persistence can fail — the Allies resisted for 4 years in 1914-1918 and ultimately won, but at a cost in lives that traumatized entire generations. The lessons of history are never simple.

What the duration of the Ukraine war compels us to do is to choose. To choose between the politics of cynical realism — accepting territorial compromises to "exit" a long and costly war — and the politics of principle — supporting a legitimate resistance until a just peace becomes possible. This is not a comfortable choice. But it is the choice that Europe, America, and the democratic world must make lucidly, knowingly, without hiding behind euphemisms of "pragmatism."

What the wartime Ukrainian generation deserves from us

There is a generation of Ukrainians — born in the 1990s and 2000s, who grew up in an independent Ukraine — whose adolescence and adulthood have been entirely defined by this war. They grew up with the Minsk Agreements of 2015, constant Russian provocations, and the full-scale invasion of 2022. This generation is the one that has held the front for 1,569 days. It deserves the West to hold as well.

What this generation deserves is a victory. Not a total victory in the coming weeks — that may be unrealistic. But progress toward a just peace that recognizes Ukrainian territorial integrity, holds Russia accountable for its crimes, and offers Ukraine a path toward European and Euro-Atlantic integration. This is what they are fighting for. This is what we must support.

This wartime Ukrainian generation inspires and obliges me. Inspires because their courage and determination exceed what I would have thought possible. Obliges because their sacrifices create a moral debt toward those who live in security in Western democracies. We cannot watch 1,569 days of war pass without being transformed by it — and without drawing practical consequences for our policies, our defense, our commitments.

The conditions for an acceptable peace

The war will last until an agreement is possible — or until one party is militarily defeated. The parameters of an agreement acceptable to Ukraine have been laid out: ceasefire on the current front line as a starting point, robust security guarantees (NATO membership or equivalent), commitment toward a definitive territorial settlement based on international law. This is not surrender — it is a realistic framework that acknowledges battlefield realities while maintaining principles.

Russia has not yet accepted this framework. It demands recognition of its territorial conquests and Ukraine's permanent neutrality — in other words, the guarantee that Ukraine will remain within its sphere of influence. These demands are unacceptable to Kyiv and to the majority of the international community. The gap remains enormous. And as long as it remains enormous, the war continues.

Peace and its enemies

Ironically, peace in Ukraine has enemies on both sides of the Atlantic. On the Western far right — in Hungary, in certain American circles — voices call for forcing Ukraine to negotiate territorial concessions to end things quickly. Within Russian ruling circles, hawks believe the war can still be won if it lasts long enough to exhaust Ukraine. These two factions, at political antipodes, are objectively playing the same game: the one that allows Putin to keep his conquests.

The only acceptable peace is a peace that does not reward aggression. Not because this is idealistic — but because rewarding aggression invites the next aggression. What Europe learned in 1938 at Munich, it must not forget in 2026. The duration of this war, however terrible, must not become an argument for capitulating on principles.

I am always wary of the false pragmatists who call for "ending the war" by forcing concessions on Ukraine. This kind of pragmatism has an invisible cost: it is called Munich. It is called the legitimization of brute force in international relations. I prefer the discomfort of long and costly support for Ukraine to the false peace of a deal that prepares the next war.

Producing weapons while rebuilding

One often-overlooked aspect of the war's duration is the economic transformation of Ukraine under bombardment. While Russia was betting on the rapid collapse of the Ukrainian economy, Ukraine made the choice of productive resilience. It has developed a significant domestic defense industry — drones, munitions, armored equipment — while maintaining essential civilian sectors such as agriculture and digital. This economic transformation is not a miracle: it is the result of a forced, painful, but real adaptation.

The Ukrainian economy experienced a severe recession in 2022, but it rebounded faster than expected. In 2025, GDP growth turned positive again, driven by partial reconstruction of liberated areas, international aid transfers, and the rise of the defense industry. This is not prosperity — but it is proof that Ukraine has not economically collapsed, contrary to the predictions of Moscow and some Western analysts.

Agricultural exports: Ukraine's soft economic weapon

Ukraine remains one of the world's breadbaskets despite the war. The partial resumption of grain exports — first via maritime corridor agreements, then via land routes after the Russian blockade — preserved a vital source of revenue. Ukrainian wheat, corn, and vegetable oils continue to supply global markets, demonstrating Ukrainian farmers' ability to produce even under threats of Russian strikes on storage and transport infrastructure.

This agricultural resilience also has a geopolitical dimension: countries of the Global South that depend on Ukrainian food imports have a direct interest in the economic survival of Ukraine. This link creates diplomatic opportunities that Kyiv has been able to exploit to broaden its international support well beyond the West.

This Ukrainian economic resilience forces me to revise one of my own preconceptions. I thought that a long war would inevitably exhaust the Ukrainian economy to the point of making it unsustainable. 1,569 days later, the Ukrainian economy is damaged but alive. This is a testament to human adaptability in the most extreme circumstances — a subject for an essay in itself.

Collective trauma as social cement

Psychologists working with Ukrainian populations document a paradoxical phenomenon: the war has created massive collective trauma while simultaneously strengthening national identity and social cohesion. Studies conducted in 2025 show high levels of post-traumatic stress across all layers of the population — with particularly heavy impact on children, returning frontline soldiers, and families of the missing. But these same studies show remarkable collective psychological resilience, sustained by a sense of common cause.

This dynamic has historical precedent. The British Blitz in 1940-1941 produced the same effect of social cohesion under bombs. But psychologists warn: this cohesion-reinforcement has its limits. After traumas, the social fractures hidden by wartime urgency can resurface violently. The psychological reconstruction of Ukraine after the war will be a generational challenge — perhaps more difficult than physical reconstruction.

Generations of war: children, young adults, and Ukraine's future

The generation growing up in Ukraine today — children born in 2022, 2023, 2024 — is the war generation. It learns in bomb shelters, in displaced schools, in front of screens in foreign countries for those who fled. It will carry the scars of these years for the rest of its life. But it will also be the generation that rebuilds — with a Ukrainian identity forged in fire, more solid and more self-aware than any previous generation.

The young adults fighting on the front today — soldiers of 20, 25, 30 — are already transformed by their experience. Those who survive will return with military skills, operational discipline, and self-confidence that neither peacetime politics nor economics could have given them. This generation of veterans will be a major political actor in postwar Ukraine — a force for change whose direction no one can precisely predict.

These young Ukrainians move me deeply. They did not choose this war — it was imposed on them. And they wage it with a dignity and determination that commands respect. When I read their testimonies, when I see their faces in reports, I think of the debt that we, comfortable Europeans, have contracted toward them. A debt we can only repay by not abandoning them.

Drones, AI, and the transformation of the battlefield

The war in Ukraine is the first high-intensity conflict to massively integrate drones, artificial intelligence, and electronic warfare into its daily operations. These 1,569 days of war have produced more operational data on modern warfare than any military exercise or simulation. The world's armies — NATO, China, South Korea, India — are following this conflict's evolution as a real-time laboratory.

The lessons are numerous and sometimes counterintuitive. Classic main battle tanks prove vulnerable to cheap drones. Trench warfare, which strategists believed obsolete since 1945, has reappeared as a frontline reality. Real-time intelligence fundamentally changes tactical decisions. And economic warfare — sanctions, asset freezes, technological restrictions — has become a full military dimension in its own right.

What these lessons imply for European security

For European armies, the Ukrainian lessons are a wake-up call. Most European armed forces are under-equipped for prolonged high-intensity warfare: insufficient munitions stocks, insufficient industrial production capacities, inadequate preparation for long-duration combat. Recent NATO exercises have exposed these gaps — and rearmament decisions taken since 2022 are beginning to produce results, but too slowly.

The message from Ukraine to Europe is clear: security is not free. It is prepared, it is funded, it is maintained. The peace dividends that Europe has banked since the end of the Cold War are exhausted. The window for credible rearmament before the next crisis arrives is narrow — and Ukraine is showing us this live, day after day, for 1,569 days.

These military lessons from Ukraine strike me every time I read them. This is not theory — it is blood, steel, and real sacrifices. And the bitter irony is that European democracies are learning faster to design weapons systems than to understand the reality lived by the Ukrainians who use them. I want to keep this imbalance in mind in every analysis.

What 1,569 days ask of us

1,569 days of war in Ukraine. Longer than World War I. Hundreds of thousands of dead. Millions displaced. A civilization that refuses to disappear under Russian bombs. This is not a balance sheet. It is a call to the conscience of Europe and the entire West.

Ukraine has held what no one predicted it could hold. It has demonstrated that the determination of a free people can counterbalance the brute power of an empire. It has shown that civic resilience is not a theoretical concept — it is a real, measurable, decisive force. It has paid this price in its flesh, its children, its cities, and its bombed cathedrals.

The response we owe

What Europe owes in return is simple to state, difficult to execute: stay. Do not yield to fatigue. Maintain military and financial support. Open the doors of the European Union and NATO to Ukraine. Hold Russia accountable for its crimes. And understand that the duration of the Ukraine war is not an anomaly — it is the price of freedom when defending it against a regime that refuses to accept it.

1,569 days. And Ukraine is still standing. That is the most important news in the world since 2022.

I close this essay with the feeling that words are insufficient against the scale of what Ukraine has lived and continues to live. 1,569 days of courage, pain, determination. History will judge those who helped, those who hesitated, and those who looked away. I want to be in the first category — at least in my writing.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a columnist and analyst. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. I claim analytical clarity, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between verified facts and interpretive analysis. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under Sources, never here.

Primary source families used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

Secondary source families: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under Sources.

Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a critical, contextual synthesis based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.