Harvard Used To Care About Ukraine. It Shouldn’t Stop Now.

When Russia invaded Ukraine three years ago, Harvard flew a Ukrainian flag over University Hall in solidarity. Yet when President Donald Trump halted military aid to the country just a few weeks ago, not even a statement was issued.

At a time when our leaders equivocate between a sovereign nation-state and an oligarchy that seeks to erase its very existence, the need for moral clarity has never been more urgent. Students — at Harvard and beyond — should be leading the charge Harvard’s leadership once proudly touted.

Three years since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion, it’s easy to tune out updates from Ukraine, where Moscow’s forces continue their assault on the country’s eastern front. It’s easier still to dismiss the war as just one of many global crises vying for our attention. The relative hush on campus suggests an alarming apathy toward this prolonged war of attrition.

At a minimum, Harvard students should care, even if the flag of Ukraine no longer flies atop University Hall. As French President Emmanuel Macron put it, the stakes of this war are global — not just for Ukrainians. Russia, Macron says, is toying with the possibility of starting World War III, and efforts to hobble the Ukrainian war effort may tip the balance towards autocracy.

The harsh reality is that without U.S. support, Ukraine will struggle to successfully defend its territory. The U.S. is by far Ukraine’s largest individual source of military support — American aid has been critical in allowing Ukrainians to hold the line against the Russian onslaught.

Harvard’s faculty and administrators have undertaken commendable efforts to support and spotlight Ukraine, including informative course offerings and speaker events sponsored by the Institute of Politics and the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies. Harvard’s Ukrainian language program, too, is a powerful rebuke of Russia’s years-long campaign to suppress Ukraine’s culture.

While the University initially officially condemned Russia’s actions, Harvard can likely no longer fly the Ukrainian flag or explicitly criticize the Trump administration’s new policy within the new confines of institutional neutrality.

Although general programming has been valuable in raising awareness of the Ukrainian plight, students too must pick up the slack.

We must actively engage with the war in Ukraine, making it a sustained part of campus discourse. Watch Zelenskyy’s full Oval Office meeting, not just algorithm-boosted clips. Stay informed daily, even when it feels exhausting. Political engagement must be consistent, not selective.

When the war first began, Harvard students went above and beyond to support Ukraine. We organized humanitarian aid drives, set up websites assisting refugees in finding housing in Ukraine and abroad, helped others locate aid resources, ginned up political support, and held frequent events to raise awareness.

Undeniably, student activism on this issue has dissipated as the war has dragged on.

The recent vigil held to commemorate the third anniversary of the Russian invasion was a good start, but we need to do more. Beyond having more rallies and programming — although those initiatives are certainly worthwhile — Harvard students can support private aid channels and utilize their tech and entrepreneurial savvy to facilitate expanded access to these platforms. Or, students can apply more pressure on the University to return to its previous vocal support — potentially by leveraging our powerful alumni network.

Moreover, students and faculty alike should demand that the University sever any ties with oligarchs whose fortunes have been made possible due to Russian corruption, especially if Russia’s actions in Ukraine have served to augment their questionable wealth. Harvard should not sully its reputation by allowing those in proximity to Russia’s kleptocratic establishment to assume political influence vis-a-vis hefty donations to the University.

Faculty, too, ought to foster civic-minded dialogue on the issue. Brief remarks at the beginning of a lecture or five minutes of discussion in an hours-long tutorial would suffice. Plus, inviting students to openly discuss the largest European conflict since World War II is low-hanging fruit for any professor seeking to fulfill Harvard’s renewed commitment to intellectual vitality and free speech. Pedagogy on Thomas Hobbes’ “state of nature” or John Stuart Mill’s “harm principle,” goes toothless without mention of how they apply to the world we inhabit.

To be clear, we do not endorse a specific policy prescription — there need not always be complete agreement about how to engage with this issue. We should, however, agree that at this juncture, Russia’s continued war in Ukraine at least warrants the level of recognition it earned when it began.

Harvard’s mission of educating future leaders, however hackneyed this phrase may be, calls on us to defend the values that enable us to debate and discover, opine for The Crimson, and spar over geopolitics without fear of political persecution.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is anathema to those values — we cannot afford to ignore it.

Jane S. Lichtman ’26, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a Government and History concentrator in Lowell House. Arjun S. Purohit ’25 is a History and Philosophy concentrator in Lowell House.