logo
'My husband is a fighter pilot in Ukraine. Here's how I really feel about a ceasefire'

'My husband is a fighter pilot in Ukraine. Here's how I really feel about a ceasefire'

Yahoo23-03-2025

Maria's life has been reduced to waiting for the next phone call from her husband - never knowing if it might be the last.
Ivan, a 31-year-old Ukrainian fighter pilot, began defending the skies from the very first hours of Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022, and has now flown more than 200 perilous missions in his old Soviet-era Mig-29 warplane.
The squadron commander has lost several comrades in the war. Some were close friends. Others were godfathers to each other's children. The location of his current air base in western Ukraine cannot be revealed for security reasons.
But as US-led efforts to negotiate a ceasefire gather pace - and fresh talks with Russia and Ukraine planned on Monday - things have changed.
"If any ceasefire comes [about], we will feel safer," says Maria.
Across Ukraine, more and more people are openly talking about war fatigue. They're calling for an end to the most brutal fighting in Europe since World War Two, and for firm guarantees of Western protection to ensure Russia can't attack again.
At the same time, Maria fears that any deal could involve accepting the loss of four Ukrainian regions in the south-east partially seized by Russia, as well as Crimea, annexed by Russia in 2014. "Nobody will give us back our lost territories", the 29-year-old says. "They will stay under Russian occupation."
She asks: "What [did] so many men, our heroes, sacrifice their lives for if Ukraine can't fight for them, and is forced to make concessions?"
When Maria and Ivan met, the prospect of a full-scale war in Ukraine seemed impossible.
Maria was an English teacher at a local children's club in western Ukraine attended by the daughter of one of Ivan's comrades. The comrade offered to set Ivan up with Maria, who he described as "a very nice teacher".
At first Ivan felt pressured by the arrangement - but he eventually agreed to come.
He was glad he did. They soon started seeing each other.
On one of their first dates, Ivan warned Maria he had a dangerous job. She said it wouldn't be a problem. Ivan was courageous, caring and protective, and Maria was falling in love.
He soon had to go on a long-term deployment far from home. They lost touch for a year, and it seemed like their relationship might be over.
But then he returned with a giant bouquet of flowers and promised her he didn't want to waste her time. Within a year, the two were married and they were soon expecting their first child.
It was only once Russia launched its full-scale invasion that Maria understood what he'd meant about the harsh realities of his work.
Their daughter Yaroslava was only three months old at the time. Ivan missed her early milestones: helping her take her first steps, seeing her first teeth come through and comforting her during her first illness.
"When Ivan is deployed far away from home, I send him thousands of our daughter's photos to help him feel that at least virtually he is spending the day with us," says Maria.
On one nearby mission, Maria put her daughter in a pram and rushed to a checkpoint where he could run out to catch them for five minutes.
She brought him home-made food. They talked. And found that every minute together was worth the months they'd spent waiting.
Before Yaroslava could even speak, she would use her tiny hands to gesture that her dad was flying through the skies.
"Our daughter knows that her dad is a pilot," she says. "When she had a birthday and her father ate a birthday cake over a video call, we explained to her that he couldn't be with us as he was defending Ukraine from the Russians."
The family now have a professional photo taken of them every six months. "It's very hard for me to say but I have to be completely honest. We never know if it [will be] our final call or meeting," Maria says, on the brink of tears.
She feels she has to be ready for "everything, including the worst-case scenario".
During the first year of the war, she would regularly hear about casualties among friends. "You call their wives and can't find the words to say. And you fear that one day, you may find yourself in the same situation."
Ukrainians are seeking concrete guarantees of protection by the US and Europe, and an increased supply of Western fighter jets, to deter Russian aggression.
The country has received a number of US-made F-16s and French Mirage fighter jets, but the country's air force still largely relies on old Soviet-era warplanes – hardly a match for more advanced Russian aircraft.
Maria is cautiously hoping for a ceasefire. It might "freeze" the conflict at best, she says, but finds it difficult to rely on as she doesn't trust Russia.
Vladimir Putin wants an end to Western military aid to Kyiv and intelligence-sharing with the Ukrainians, as well as a halt to mobilisation in Ukraine.
Many experts say that his demands are simply a pretext to continue the war he launched, in spite of heavy Russian casualties.
There are also fears that Donald Trump – who has publicly stated that ending the war is one of his top priorities – could be preparing a behind-the-scenes deal with Russia which would force Ukraine to accept painful concessions.
Even after a ceasefire, Maria will still be waiting for calls and rare meetings, as the Ukrainian air force will have to stay alert for a long time.
And while there may be peace in Ukraine, she wonders if her husband will ever be at peace again. Maria says Ivan, who has been deeply affected by the fighting on the front line, has a "patriotic soul" and will continue serving even after the war.
Maria feels it is important for him to not feel the casualties were in vain, and remains hopeful that the Russian-held parts of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk and Luhansk will one day be returned.
The priority for Maria now is to reassure her husband and offer him optimism. She dreams of a future where her young family can finally start to rebuild their life in a home of their own, in their own country.
"My husband needs to know that we are always waiting for him."
Why Trump is struggling to secure fast ceasefire in Ukraine
Reassurance, not peacekeeping: What Ukraine coalition force will and won't do
Ukraine's 'chaotic' withdrawal from Russia, in its soldiers' words
Rosenberg: Trump-Putin call seen as victory in Russia

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Congo and Rwanda Sign a Peace Accord in Washington
Congo and Rwanda Sign a Peace Accord in Washington

Wall Street Journal

time27 minutes ago

  • Wall Street Journal

Congo and Rwanda Sign a Peace Accord in Washington

WASHINGTON—Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo signed a U.S.-brokered peace deal, aiming to end one of the world's most pernicious conflicts and open their shared stretch of East African mineral wealth to U.S. investment. Rwanda and Congo on Friday agreed to 'immediately and unconditionally cease any state support to nonstate armed groups' in eastern Congo, and to work for their 'disengagement, disarmament, and integration.'

Supreme Court delivers for Trump
Supreme Court delivers for Trump

The Hill

timean hour ago

  • The Hill

Supreme Court delivers for Trump

Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here THE SUPREME COURT on Friday delivered a victory for President Trump by limiting the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions on a birthright citizenship case. Trump called the 6-3 decision, which cut along ideological lines, a 'monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law.' 'I was elected on a historic mandate but in recent months we've seen a handful of radical left judges effectively try to overrule the rightful power of the president,' Trump said at an impromptu press conference that also served as a victory lap. 'It was a grave threat to democracy, frankly, and instead of merely ruling on the immediate cases before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation,' he added. Federal district court judges have issued dozens of nationwide injunctions blocking Trump's orders on tariffs, immigration and many other issues. Attorney General Pam Bondi said 35 of the 40 nationwide injunctions issued this year had come from five of the nation's 94 federal judicial districts. 'They turned district courts into the imperial judiciary,' she said. 'Active liberal judges have used these injunctions to block nearly all of President Trump's polices.' The ruling deals a blow to Democratic efforts to block some of Trump's more controversial executive orders from going into effect. 'These injunctions — known as 'universal injunctions' — likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts,' Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote, representing the six conservative justices. Trump said the ruling gives him free range to press ahead on all of the cases that have been blocked by nationwide injunctions. 'Thanks to this decision, we can now properly file to proceed with these numerous policies and those that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis, including birthright citizenship, ending sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries and numerous other priorities of the American people,' Trump said. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP HANGS IN THE BALANCE The ruling was ostensibly about Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship, which had been blocked by a nationwide injunction. That order can go into effect in some parts of the country for now, although the issue has not been resolved. The Hill's Zach Schonfeld explains: 'For now, the justices narrowed the lower court rulings to only block Trump's order as applied to the 22 Democratic-led states, expectant mothers and immigration organizations that are suing. The Trump administration can now resume developing guidance to implement the order, though they must wait 30 days before attempting to deny citizenship to anyone.' The ruling will allow plaintiffs to coordinate class action lawsuits against Trump's birthright citizenship order, which curbs birthright citizenship for people born on U.S. soil if they don't have at least one parent with permanent legal status. Every lower court has so far found the order unconstitutional. And the three liberal justices issued a fiery defense. 'No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote on behalf of the liberal justices. 'Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship,' she added. The birthright citizenship case is expected to return to the Supreme Court in the fall after the high court's summer break. TRUMP CELEBRATES LGBTQ RULING The Supreme Court on Friday also ruled 6-3 along ideological lines in favor of a group of Maryland parents seeking to opt their children out of classroom sessions using books with LGBTQ themes. 'In the absence of an injunction, the parents will continue to be put to a choice: either risk their child's exposure to burdensome instruction, or pay substantial sums for alternative educational services,' Justice Samuel Alito wrote on behalf of the six conservative justices. 'As we have explained, that choice unconstitutionally burdens the parents' religious exercise.' The court's three liberal justices dissented. 'The result will be chaos for this Nation's public schools,' Sotomayor wrote. 'The harm will not be borne by educators alone: Children will suffer too,' she added. 'Classroom disruptions and absences may well inflict long-lasting harm on students' learning and development.' The parents were represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and backed by the Trump administration. 'It's a great ruling for parents,' Trump said. 'They lost control of the schools, they lost control of their child.' The authors in the LGBTQ case called the ruling 'discriminatory and harmful.' MORE COURT ACTION • The Supreme Court ruled that Texas's age-verification law for porn websites is constitutional and does not violate the First Amendment. • The court upheld a multibillion-dollar subsidy program that funds phone and internet services in rural areas and schools, rejecting a conservative group's claims that Congress delegated too much power in setting it up. • Justices upheld the constitutionality of an ObamaCare requirement that insurance companies cover certain preventive care recommended by an expert panel. • The Supreme Court will hear a new round of arguments over Louisiana's addition of a second majority-Black congressional district, which could have ramifications over the future of the Voting Rights Act. 💡Perspectives: • The Hill: Trump defies the skeptics and conquers Europe. • The Hill: Trump must provide maximum support for Iran's people. • The Atlantic: Trump's deportation goals are unrealistic. • Jerusalem Post: 12 observations following the 12 day war. Read more: • Barrett, Jackson spar in birthright citizenship case opinions. • US signs agreements with Guatemala, Honduras to take asylum-seekers. • Abrego Garcia asks to delay release from jail amid threats of deportation. President Trump said Friday he's suspending trade talks with Canada and would announce within a week a higher tariff rate on the U.S.'s northern neighbor. The Trump administration reached an agreement with China focused on rare earth exports to the U.S., building on previous talks between the two nations that eased tariffs on imports from Beijing. Stocks reached record highs before retreating on the Canada trade talk news. Iranian leaders say they'll no longer cooperate with the United Nation's watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), following U.S. strikes on Tehran's nuclear facilities. Trump said Friday he'd consider bombing Iran again if the U.S. gathers intelligence that raises concerns about the country's uranium enrichment capabilities © Greg Nash Senate Republicans are regrouping after Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough dashed their plan to achieve billions in savings through cuts to Medicaid. The Senate referee determined that the Medicaid cuts in President Trump's agenda bill did not adhere to the Byrd Rule, and therefore would be subject to a Democratic filibuster, which would require 60 votes to overcome. Republicans don't appear to even have a simple 51-vote majority for the bill at this point, so they're on the hunt for a workaround. The surprise decision on Medicaid means Republicans must find hundreds of billions in additional spending cuts in order to account for the lost government revenue from their efforts to make some tax cuts permanent. 'We have contingency plans, plan B, plan C,' said Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), who met with Trump at the White House on Thursday. The Senate's work is poised to spill into the weekend, with senators saying Friday afternoon they expect the first vote on Saturday. Trump said Friday his July 4 deadline for passage is 'not the end all,' suggesting he's open to giving lawmakers more time to find consensus. The Senate Parliamentarian has so far struck nearly two dozen pieces from the megabill, most recently ruling against religious college tax carve-outs, gun silencer deregulation and text that would prohibit federal subsidies for health plans that cover abortion services. Thune said he won't seek to override the parliamentarian, earning the ire of conservative hardliners. 'Thune needs to over rule her or FIRE HER!!!' Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) posted on X. 'We need leaders with courage not weak men who refuse to use their power in order to do the right thing!!!' Trump said Friday that MacDonough has 'been a little difficult.' 'I'd say I disagree with the parliamentarian on some things, and in other ways she's been fine, but we'll have to see,' he said. The Republicans got one win Friday, with the parliamentarian green-lighting their rewritten text that would require states to cover a share of food benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The Trump administration is engaged in a maximum pressure campaign on Congressional Republicans amid deep divisions over spending, taxes and Medicaid cuts. The president held an event at the White House on Thursday with 'ordinary Americans' he says the bill will help, including tipped workers, border patrol and law enforcement. Even if the bill makes it through the Senate, opposition is mounting in the House over the upper chamber's changes to the bill. Five House Republicans say they'll oppose the bill if it includes a provision to sell public lands for development. However, House Republicans from high-tax blue states are honing in on an agreement with the Trump administration for the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap, which has been a major point of contention. Still, the deal will have to be approved by Senate Republicans to be finalized. 'There's a tentative deal between the SALT and White House, but not the Senate [which is] still talking through that,' Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) said. Republicans are in a tough spot, with every new deal or concession by one faction of the caucus resulting in opposition from another. 'The perfect cannot be the enemy of the good,' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Friday. 💡Perspectives: • L.A. Times: Social Security is headed for a cliff. When will voters care? • Roger Marshall: Medicaid is broken. Republicans are trying to save it. • The Liberal Patriot: Industrial policy and the fight for America's future. Read more: • How Medicaid ruling could blow up Senate GOP's plans. • Republicans float revamped proposal for CFPB cuts. • House GOP advances bill 'gutting' government watchdog. • Iran briefing leaves Democrats asking questions. A majority of Americans say the U.S. is on the wrong track, according to the latest survey from Emerson College. Fifty-three percent in the poll said the U.S. is going in the wrong direction, compared to 47 percent who said it's headed in the right direction. President Trump's approval rating is near break-even in the poll, at 45 percent positive and 46 percent negative, down slightly from January, when he was at 49 percent positive and 41 percent negative. Who will become the GOP torchbearer once Trump leaves office? The Emerson survey found Vice President Vance as the clear front-runner at 46 percent support, followed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio at 12 percent and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis at 9 percent. The survey also found that former Vice President Kamala Harris's star has fallen since her election defeat in 2024. The Emerson survey finds former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg leading the pack of potential Democratic presidential contenders at 16 percent, followed by Harris at 13 percent, California Gov. Gavin Newsom at 12 percent and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro at 7 percent. A plurality of Democrats, 23 percent, are undecided. ©In a November Emerson survey taken after Harris's election defeat, she held a wide lead over the pack with 37 percent support, a 24-point fall in the latest survey. Politico reports that lack of enthusiasm extends to Harris's potential bid for governor of California, where the donor reception has been cool to her potential candidacy. MEANWHILE… CNN is reporting that former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D), facing a Friday deadline to remove himself from the New York City mayoral race after losing the Democratic primary to Zohran Mamdani, plans to stay on the ballot and run representing the 'Fight and Deliver' party. That means the New York City mayoral race will feature a crowded general election field, including Cuomo, Mamdani, current New York City Mayor Eric Adams (who is running as an independent) and Republican Curtis Sliwa. The Hill's Julia Manchester reports that Republicans will be looking to tie all Democrats to Mamdani's democratic socialist platform in the 2026 midterms, believing they can cast their rivals as too extreme. 'Every Democrat in America is going to have to answer for these insane positions,' Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) told The Hill. 'They own him. This is how radicalized their party has become.' Stefanik appears to be angling to run against Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-N.Y.) in 2026. Mamdani has been met with some criticism from mainstream Democrats. On Friday, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) called on him to denounce the phrase 'globalize the intifada' after he previously defended it. 💡Perspectives: • The Hill: 6 lessons from Zohran Mamdani's victory. • Bernie Sanders: Will Democrats learn from Mamdani's victory? • Whole Hog Politics: New York's not big enough for Cuomo and Adams. • Spiked: Mamdani's progressive intifada will be a disaster for New York. • Salon: The Trump resistance is still 'muscle-building'. Read more: • Gavin Newsom suing Fox News. • House Republicans subpoena Harvard president. • 6 Southern public university systems form new accreditation body. • Seven Democrats vote for GOP resolution condemning LA protests Here's who's talking Sunday… NewsNation's 'The Hill Sunday': Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.); former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun (D-Ill.). Fox's 'Sunday Morning Future': President Trump. Fox's 'Fox News Sunday': Sens. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.). ABC's 'This Week': Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.); House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.). NBC's 'Meet the Press': New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani (D); Sens. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). Someone forward this newsletter to you? Sign up to get your own copy: See you next time!

5 takeaways from the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship ruling
5 takeaways from the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship ruling

The Hill

time2 hours ago

  • The Hill

5 takeaways from the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship ruling

The Supreme Court handed President Trump a clear victory Friday, stopping judges from issuing nationwide injunctions that block his executive order narrowing birthright citizenship. But the cases aren't over yet, as a new phase of the battle commences in the lower courts. Here are five takeaways from the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship ruling. Friday's opinion came from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Trump's third appointee to the court who has recently faced a barrage of criticism from the president's own supporters. The heat grew as Barrett this spring ruled against the administration in several emergency cases, including Trump's bid to freeze foreign aid payments and efforts to swiftly deport alleged gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. By tradition, the most senior member of the majority decides who authors the opinion. So, Chief Justice John Roberts would've assigned Barrett as the author soon after the May 15 oral arguments. On Friday, Barrett ultimately wrote for all five of her fellow Republican-appointed justices, being the face of the Trump administration's major win. Barrett rejected the challengers' notion that nationwide injunctions were needed as a powerful tool to check the executive branch. 'Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,' she wrote. Though the court curtailed nationwide injunctions, the decision leaves the door open for plaintiffs to try to seek broad relief by pursuing class action lawsuits. Within hours, one group of plaintiffs quickly took the hint. A coalition of expectant mothers and immigration organizations suing asked a district judge in Maryland to issue a new ruling that applies to anyone designated as ineligible for birthright citizenship under Trump's order — the same practical effect as a nationwide injunction. The Democratic-led states suing are also vowing to press ahead. 'We remain hopeful that the courts will see that a patchwork of injunctions is unworkable, creating administrative chaos for California and others and harm to countless families across our country. The fight is far from over,' California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) said in a statement. And the American Civil Liberties Union brought an entirely new lawsuit Friday seeking to do the same. The efforts could quickly bring the birthright citizenship battle back to the Supreme Court. 'In cases where classwide or set-aside relief has been awarded, the losing side in the lower courts will likewise regularly come to this Court if the matter is sufficiently important,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh in a solo concurring opinion. 'When a stay or injunction application arrives here, this Court should not and cannot hide in the tall grass.' Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, two of the court's leading conservatives, cautioned lower courts against creating a 'significant loophole' to Friday's decision by stretching when plaintiffs can file class action lawsuits. 'Federal courts should thus be vigilant against such potential abuses of these tools,' Alito wrote, joined by Thomas. Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned the chief dissent, arguing that the rule of law is 'not a given' in America and the high court gave up its 'vital role' in preserving it with Friday's opinion. Joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, she claimed that the Trump administration sought to tear down nationwide injunctions because it can't prove the president's order narrowing birthright citizenship is likely constitutional. Trump's order made a 'solemn mockery' of the Constitution, she said, and his request to instead curtail nationwide injunctions is obvious 'gamesmanship.' 'Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way,' Sotomayor wrote. 'Because such complicity should know no place in our system of law, I dissent.' Going further than her liberal peers, Jackson wrote in a solo dissent that the court's decision was an 'existential threat to the rule of law' — drawing a harsh rebuke from Barrett, a dramatic exchange between the two most junior justices. Jackson argued that the majority uses legalese to obscure a more basic question at the heart of the case: 'May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?' 'It is not difficult to predict how this all ends,' Jackson wrote. 'Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more.' At another point, she said that 'everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law,' suggesting that the Trump administration's efforts to 'vanquish' universal injunctions amounts to a request for permission to 'engage in unlawful behavior' — and that the majority gave the president just that. The rhetoric in Jackson's opinion amounts to a 'startling line of attack,' Barrett said, condemning her argument as 'extreme.' 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,' Barrett wrote. 'No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation — in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.' She urged Jackson to 'heed her own admonition' that everyone, from the president down, is bound by law. 'That goes for judges too,' Barrett said. Trump and his allies hailed the ruling as a decisive victory for his administration, promising to move his sweeping second term agenda forward with judges' power significantly curtailed. 'It was a grave threat to democracy, frankly, and instead of merely ruling on the immediate cases before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation,' Trump said at a press conference Friday afternoon. He specifically slammed 'radical left judges' he said used nationwide injunctions as a tool to 'overrule the rightful powers of the president' to stop illegal immigration. The decision means his administration can now move forward on a 'whole list' of policy priorities that were frozen nationwide by federal judges, he argued, from birthright citizenship to freezing federal funding. 'We have so many of them,' Trump said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store