A former British army captain, who was awarded the Ukrainian medal, committed suicide at his home in August, aged just 40.

The former Army officer's name is Ned.by Harris, was born in August 1985. He was a captain in the famous Cold Creek Guards of the British Royal Army Infantry Regiment and served in Afghanistan.

Harris loses left leg after a fight in Bakhmut

After the Russia-Ukraine conflict broke out in February 2022, Harris, who had retired, went to the Ukrainian border and offered military training assistance. A month later, he joined the "Ukrainian International Legion" as an ordinary soldier. It is reported that Harris not only participated in military battles with the soldiers, but also persuaded the Ukrainian commander to let him be responsible for forming two small teams similar to special forces to attack high-value targets such as Russian armored forces.

During the fierce conflict of the Bachmouth "hanging machine" in November 2022, Harris was struck by a drone. During the battle, he was killed and wounded, while he himself was shot in the upper half of his body, and his left leg was wounded by cannon.

Afterwards, Harris was sent to the field hospital in Dnipro. During his stay in the hospital, he waited for treatment while still operating two phones on his bed. Later, he was sent back to England for treatment at St. George's Hospital in London and underwent an abdominal surgery.

In August 2024, Ukraine launched a large-scale military operation against Russia's Kursk region, and Harris was also involved. According to reports, Harris firmly believed that the operation was "ill-considered" at the time and watched some of his comrades die in what he thought was meaningless battle.

In November 2024, Harris left the International Corps. In recognition of him, Ukraine awarded him the "Medal of Courage."

When Harris returned to England, life seemed to be going back on track. He went to visit the families of his friends who had been sacrificed, went to school to share his experiences with young people, and also planned to pursue a psychology degree at the end of the year, hoping to help other soldiers who had post-war trauma.

On August 26 this year, Ned Harris shot himself at his home in London, taking his life.

Red Star News reporter Deng Shuyi

Further reading:

Trump's position on Ukraine: What could Russia do?

On the Russia-Ukraine issue, US President Trump's tone has changed recently.

He pointed out that with the support of the European Union, Kiev is not only expected to regain lost ground (obviously including the Crimean Peninsula), but may even "go further" in military confrontation. Trump also said that the Russian economy has fallen into serious trouble, and the conflict that lasted for three and a half years has fully exposed many fundamental weaknesses of Russia, making Moscow a "paper tiger".

Does this mean that Trump's strategic stance on the Russia-Ukraine conflict has changed? Can it be said that the White House is finally determined to completely overturn the outcome of the US-Russia Anchorage summit? Has the "brotherhood" between Trump and Putin come to an end, and in the future, the U.S. president will treat Russian leaders with the condescending and even rude attitude he habitually treats most U.S. partners, allies and opponents?

It is foreseeable that this subtle shift in U.S. position has left great expectations for Kiev and the major European capitals.When European countries have long been at the forefront of this shift, many politicians and analysts hastened to assert that Trump finally returned to Biden¡¯s old strategy ¨C despite Trump¡¯s repeatedly sharp criticism and ridicule of the Biden line.

At the same time, the speculation that Trump has indeed changed the Ukrainian crisis strategy has naturally sparked concerns and unrest on the part of Moscow. The mounting anti-U.S. sentiment and deep doubts about the U.S. again quickly occupied the Russian public opinion. It is certain that the Russian leadership has strived to mitigate Trump¡¯s outstanding remarks and prevent the U.S. Russia from falling into a new round of information war. Kremlin spokesman Peskov replied in a joke-like tone that Russia is not a tiger but a bear, and there is absolutely nothing ¡°paper bear¡± in the world.

Trump spoke at the United Nations General Assembly, saying that Russia has become a ¡°paper tiger¡±. Russia replied that Russia is a real bear, and there is no ¡°paper bear¡± in the world.

Several Reasons and Explanations for Trump¡¯s Changing Attitude

There are at least four possible explanations for the reasons why the U.S. leader's remarks have changed significantly from his recent statement.

First, although Trump is known for his stubbornness and toughness, he seems to be extremely susceptible to external influence and often leans towards the views of the foreign leaders he last came into contact with. After deep conversations with Zelensky in New York, he tended to see conflict through the bias filter of Ukraine. This pattern was reflected as early as January ago-after meeting with Putin in Alaska, he immediately declared that he fully understood Russia's legitimate concerns and said that the Ukraine president could end the conflict immediately as long as he accepted the established settlement conditions. If this is the case, then holding another US-Russia summit will definitely make his position uncertain again.

Second, Trump has lost patience with the peace process's delay in achieving results. The 47th president of the United States has always lacked strategic patience and has always preferred short-term political speculation over long-term political investment. Currently, critics at home and abroad have emphasized that there has been no progress in Russia-Ukraine reconciliation and questioned its ability to govern the country. After all, six weeks have passed since the US-Russian leaders 'summit held in Anchorage, Alaska, USA on August 15, 2025, and there are no signs of cooling down on the battlefield, nor are there any signs of easing in the near future. In such circumstances, Trump needs to create more dramatic tensions to continue his self-proclaimed "global mediator" persona.

The leaders of the United States and Russia met in Anchorage on August 15. Photo from Sputnik/Gavriil Grigorov

Thirdly, these controversial statements are the reflection of its iconic negotiating strategy ¨C constant pressure on the negotiators. During the famous White House meeting at the end of February, he publicly humiliated Zelensky; then, by pushing for a ¡°rare-earth deal¡±, successfully forced the Ukrainian leadership to make concessions and put the economic life of Ukraine under U.S. control. Now he may think the time has come to respond to Moscow¡¯s artillery system, forcing Putin to accept his peace plan. Of course, this move is risky ¨C Russia has never surrendered to external pressure, but will be harder in the face of external pressure.

Fourth, the U.S. leader may have determined that resolving the Russia-Ukraine conflict is an "impossible task"-at least for him personally at this stage. Therefore, it is said that he has launched an exit strategy, with the intention of shifting all responsibility for the aftermath of the Ukrainian crisis to European allies. He may not care whether Macron, Mertz, Starmer and others have the ability to provide long-term military assistance to Ukraine-if the Ukrainian army suffers a major failure in the future, this will be a personal problem for Europe rather than Trump. According to this logic, the so-called statement that "Ukraine can surpass the 1991 border with European support" is purely a joking provocation.

The above four explanations each have their own basis and are all worthy of in-depth discussion. However, it is almost impossible to accurately interpret Trump's thinking at present. Only time will reveal the true motives behind his repeated remarks.

U.S. position on Ukraine remains unchanged.

But we should not ignore the unchanged elements of its Ukraine position-both in recent days and months. Two points are particularly critical.

First of all, Trump was never prepared and does not intend to use U.S. taxpayers 'money to fund the war in Ukraine. This is clearly the most significant difference between him and Joe Biden, who provided at least US$66 billion to Kiev in military aid alone, not counting economic and financial assistance. Yes, Ukraine can still count on receiving U.S. arms deliveries (including some cutting-edge equipment), but only if the Europeans pay in full. Even if the EU is severely weakened in the coming years by continued subsidies to Ukraine's military and national finances, Trump will not care, and may even welcome the Brussels bureaucracy in trouble.

Another characteristic of Trump¡¯s stance on the conflict in Ukraine is that he has always explicitly refused to offer any hard security commitments to Kiev and is reluctant to provide guarantees for European allies who are seeking asylum in Ukraine. At the New York meeting, the U.S. President has not given up on this issue, promising only to discuss Ukraine¡¯s security in an ¡°uncertain future¡±. It is clear that during Trump¡¯s presidency, the U.S. will not repeat the option of allowing Ukraine to go through NATO¡¯s ¡°fast passage.¡±

Of course Trump intends to impose a new round of economic sanctions on Russia, and several of his sheriffs ¡ª including Vice President Wences and Secretary of State Rubio ¡ª have all suggested that this option is always within the scope of the president¡¯s consideration. If U.S. sanctions policies can be fully synchronized with the EU as during the Biden period, it would indeed pose a serious challenge to Russian foreign trade and even significantly reduce the Kremlin¡¯s current foreign exchange income.

But in this matter, Trump also asked European allies to bear the price and make the most painful decision: he asked the EU to immediately and completely stop purchasing Russian oil and gas, and impose prohibitive high tariffs on all countries in the global south that have close economic and trade exchanges with Moscow. In fact, these demands will inevitably destroy the global trading system and detonate the internal economic crisis of the EU. However, Trump can take this opportunity to occupy the moral high ground and accuse European leaders of "greed", "hypocrisy" and even "shameless". The United States itself has almost nothing to lose in the sanctions game-the scale of US-Russia trade is negligible, and further restrictions will not have a substantial impact on the US economy.

What could Russia do?

What does this mean for Russia? If the situation eventually develops that Trump completely loses patience with Ukraine and decides to leave the European conflict to Europeans themselves, this decision may be objectively beneficial to Moscow. For Russia, facing a tired, barren and divided Europe is far easier than dealing with a monolithic "collective West" dominated by the United States. Of course, the joint strength of major European countries should not be underestimated, but without the participation of the United States, this "voluntary alliance" may not be strong enough to impose its will on Moscow.

However, Trump¡¯s early withdrawal from the Ukrainian mediation process could also pose significant risks to Russia. After all, at the moment only Trump can have a substantial impact on Europe¡¯s position, and only Washington can restrict Europe¡¯s most radical hard-thinking trends a bit. If the United States is absent from the negotiating table, Europe could become an out-of-control variable, taking extremely irrational or even irresponsible actions.

More importantly, whether or not the White House will blame the Russian side for the failure of the mediation, if the US is implicitly or explicitly unable to handle the Russian-Ukrainian mediator, it will inevitably lead to a sudden decline in the interest of the Trump administration in the normalization of U.S.-Russian relations as a whole. The Ukraine issue is clearly at the core of the overall interaction between the White House and the Kremlin, and if the failure of the mediation will have a profound negative impact on the strategic stability, regional crisis, global issues and other bilateral interaction dimensions, let alone political diplomatic relations.

Trump is extremely sensitive to the diplomatic frustration and will remember the situation in Ukraine for many years, so keeping Trump in the mediation process rather than pushing it aside is in Russia¡¯s interest.