Genocide and War are not the same

Determining the precise percentage of children killed in Ukraine and Gaza is challenging due to varying reporting methods, the rapid pace of events, and difficulties in verification. However, available data from international bodies like the UN and NGOs illustrate a striking difference in the proportion of child casualties between the two conflicts. 

Children killed in Gaza

Children constitute a significantly larger proportion of the total fatalities in the conflict in Gaza than in Ukraine. 

• High proportion of deaths: Multiple reports highlight that children make up a disproportionate share of the deaths in Gaza.
• Confirmed deaths: The Gaza Health Ministry (GHM) reported 19,424 child fatalities as of September 2025. This figure represents 33.8% of identified deaths, with women and children making up a large majority.
• Underreported totals: Aid agencies caution that these figures are likely an undercount, as thousands more are missing and presumed to be buried under rubble. 

Children killed in Ukraine

The number of children killed in Ukraine is lower, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of total deaths, compared to Gaza. 

• Verifiable deaths: Between February 24, 2022, and December 31, 2024, the UN Human Rights Office verified that 669 children were killed in Ukraine. The actual numbers are considered to be higher.
• Percentage of total: For the same period, child fatalities made up approximately 5% of the total verified civilian deaths in Ukraine, according to Statista. 

Factors influencing reporting differences

• Casualty verification: While data collection is difficult in both conflicts, the verification of casualties, particularly in Gaza, is complicated by the collapse of health infrastructure and the large number of bodies under rubble.
• Population demographics: Gaza has a very young population, with approximately 40% of residents under the age of 14. This demographic profile makes a higher proportion of child casualties more likely in conflict.
• Nature of conflict: In its 2025 report, Save the Children noted that the increasing use of explosive weapons in urban areas is killing and injuring children on an unprecedented scale, with Gaza and Ukraine among the deadliest places for children. 

Trump's 28-point plan for ending the Ukraine conflict

Reports emerging on November 19, 2025, from sources like Axios, The New York Times, and Reuters describe a 28-point plan for ending the Ukraine conflict that was secretly drafted by U.S. and Russian officials. According to these reports, the proposal was developed by the Trump administration with Russia's cooperation but without the direct involvement of Ukraine. 

The plan's specific details are not public, but news reports based on unnamed officials have outlined its reported key provisions. The terms are similar to many of Russia's long-standing demands, which Kyiv has previously rejected as non-starters. 

Reported provisions of the plan 

Territorial concessions 

• Russia would gain de facto control of the eastern Ukrainian regions of Luhansk and Donetsk (the Donbas). Ukraine would not be required to publicly acknowledge this.
• The U.S. and the international community would recognize Crimea and the Donbas as Russian territory.
• In the frontline regions of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, the current lines of control would be mostly frozen, with Russia returning some land.
• One reported variant suggests a "cash-for-land" lease, where Russia would pay a rental fee for de facto control of the Donbas region.
• The issue of formal recognition of the territorial changes would be deferred for several decades. 

Military reductions and restrictions 

• Ukraine would be forced to significantly reduce the size of its military, potentially by as much as 60%.
• Kyiv would be required to give up long-range missiles or any weapons that can reach deep inside Russian territory, such as Moscow or St. Petersburg.
• Foreign troops would be banned from Ukrainian soil, eliminating the possibility of an international peacekeeping force.
• NATO countries would be prohibited from keeping military aircraft in Ukraine. 

Political and cultural changes 

• Russian would be recognized as an official state language in Ukraine.
• The local branch of the Russian Orthodox Church would be granted official status. 

Other conditions 

• Ukraine would reportedly receive security guarantees from the U.S. in exchange for these concessions, though the specific nature of these guarantees has not been detailed.
• In a move to incentivize Russia, the U.S. would lift many sanctions on Moscow, with energy cooperation potentially resuming over time.
• Ukraine would be required to abandon its NATO aspirations for several years. 

Context of the plan's development

• According to reports from Axios and others, the plan was inspired by the 20-point peace roadmap for the conflict between Israel and Hamas.
• The negotiations for the plan were reportedly led by Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff and involved discussions with Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev.
• Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's national security adviser, Rustem Umerov, was reportedly briefed on the plan.
• The drafting of the plan reportedly took place without Ukrainian or European involvement, sparking concern among allies. 

Regarding a split in the Ukrainian churches

My inquiry about the split in the Ukrainian churches received this AI response:

The schism between Ukrainian Orthodoxy and the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) is the result of centuries of linguistic and political friction that came to a head with Russia's aggression against 

Ukraine

. While the two sides share the same Eastern Orthodox theological roots, their positions on national identity, independence, and the language of worship became irreconcilable. 

Key players in the Orthodox split

Several factions existed in Ukraine before the final unification of a new national church in 2018. The main division was between those with strong pro-Ukrainian stances and those who maintained loyalty to Moscow. 

• Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU): The OCU was officially granted independence (autocephaly) from Moscow by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in 2019. It was formed by a unification of Ukrainian breakaway churches, including the formerly unrecognized Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC-KP) and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC). The OCU is aligned with the Ukrainian state and supports national independence.
• Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC): Until May 2022, this was the Ukrainian branch of the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP) and the largest Orthodox church in Ukraine. It remained under the spiritual authority of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, but in 2022, it formally declared its independence from Russia following the invasion. However, this new independent status is not recognized by other Orthodox churches. 

The critical role of language

The use of language in worship was a key point of division that reflected the deeper political and national identities of the two factions. 

	Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU)	Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC/UOC-MP)
Language in services	Uses Ukrainian, reflecting a pro-Ukrainian stance and rejection of Russian influence. In contrast to Russian churches, Ukrainian Orthodoxy has historically borrowed less from Old Church Slavonic.	Historically, used Church Slavonic, the liturgical language favored by the Russian Orthodox Church. However, since the break with Moscow in 2022, the UOC has begun using more Ukrainian.
Worship style	Though the theology and basic Byzantine Rite liturgy are the same across Orthodox churches, the OCU uses language and other local customs that differentiate it from the Russian church.	Follows the same fundamental theology and liturgy as other Eastern Orthodox churches.
National identity	Strongly connected to Ukrainian national identity and independence. It was founded on the principle of a "one country, one church" model common among Orthodox nations.	Until 2022, the Moscow Patriarchate and its supporters in the UOC-MP did not accept a separate Ukrainian identity and regarded Ukrainians and Russians as one people. After declaring independence in 2022, the UOC leadership denounced the Russian invasion and severed ties with Moscow.

Political factors in the schism

The split in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was largely driven by political events, beginning with Russia's aggression in 2014 and culminating with the full-scale invasion in 2022. 

• Russian interference: For many years, the UOC-MP was viewed with suspicion by Ukrainian nationalists, who saw it as an instrument of Russian influence. Following the 2014 annexation of Crimea and the 2022 invasion, the ROC and its patriarch, Kirill, openly supported the Kremlin, which solidified the view that the Moscow-linked church was a tool of Russian state policy.
• Ukrainian independence: The move toward an independent church was seen by Ukrainian leaders as a critical step in breaking free from Russia's political, economic, and religious dominance. It was a key element in consolidating Ukrainian national identity, which the Russian state had long denied.
• Ecumenical recognition: Ukraine actively sought recognition for its new church from the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the historical spiritual center of global Orthodoxy. The decision to grant autocephaly to the new OCU was a major theological and political setback for the Russian Orthodox Church, which lost a large number of its parishes in the process.