Much of the world has been waiting for Donald Trump’s declaration that he could “end the war in Ukraine” in 24 hours to see if he could force Moscow and Kyiv to reach a settlement. On that subject, millions of views and views, miles of news feeds, and mountains of forecasts have been burned.
Trump fueled this expectation by claiming that Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the president of Ukraine, had run out of options and would eventually have to accept his deal. The opposite is actually the case. Trump lacks all leverage, according to Trump. He has no influence over Vladimir Putin, but he has the power to threaten Nicolas Maduro with possible military action in Venezuela or nearby. There isn’t a single leader in the West who would be willing to sever the branch from their grasp, and any sanctions that are severe enough to harm Russia would also have an impact on the wider Western economy.
Even more improbable is an armed intervention. NATO made the decision to support Ukraine with weapons and training right away, avoiding any possible maneuvers that could lead to a direct NATO-Russia conflict. That position has not changed.
In consequence, Ukraine is now effectively fighting Russia alone, with or without the support of its allies. All talk of a truce or ceasefire has come off as a bluff for Vladimir Putin to use to resumption his duties. Putin’s plan relies on the patience and political unanimity of its allies in order to defeat Ukraine’s army. Following consultations with Kyiv and a number of European governments, the United States has now made a revised version of its peace plan available. The Kremlin is still pressed for significant territorial concessions as well as the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces. Russia asserts that it will not stop its advance without this. For its part, Ukraine maintains that it will not give up its territory.
The United States almost stopped sending arms to Ukraine once it became clear that the diplomatic route offered no solution. Although it was unlikely that the Pentagon’s true cause would be a lack of movers, officials attributed the shutdown to the federal government. In any case, supplies that were previously approved by the Biden administration have slowed to a trickle. Defense Secretary-designate Austin Dahmer stated at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, “I’m not aware of any pause in] US military] aid to Ukraine.” It sounded more like an admission of ignorance than a serious assessment. The sharp reduction in American weapons has had a negative impact on every Ukrainian soldier. Air defense systems are a common acrimony among residents of Kyiv and other cities.
The gap has not been filled by Europe. The joint-procurement and defense industry in the European Union have produced numerous promises but little real money. There have only been a few billion euros in official commitments and very little has been delivered. Although their own programs are moving slowly, the member states prefer to rearm themselves and Ukraine. Governments in the EU continue to split between those who want to support Kyiv and those who don’t want Russia to proliferate or hurt their own budgets. The intention is being spearheaded by Brussels to use frozen Russian assets to finance a 140 billion euro ($162 billion) loan for Ukraine, which could help finance Kyiv’s budget and defense spending over the upcoming two years. The plan may not work without unanimity, even in several of the key member states that hold the majority of those reserves.
So Ukraine can now expand its own production while fighting with whatever comes and isn’t snatched up by corrupt individuals like Tymur Mindich, who is the subject of an investigation into a significant procurement case. Ukraine can stifle the enemy at great cost, but this is far beyond our capabilities.
There isn’t enough ammunition for the army. The government has accomplished the opposite of what the government has done: mobilize or maintain motivation. Women cannot wait indefinitely while men are engaged in a fourth year of combat. The level of conflict is rising, the level of stress is waning, and morale is deteriorating. Since 2022, prosecution has opened more than 255 000 cases of unauthorised absence and more than 56 000 of desertion. They recorded roughly 162, 500 AWOL cases and 21, 600 desertion cases in just the first ten months of 2025. More than 21, 000 soldiers left the army in October, according to various reports, which is the highest monthly figure so far. The scope of social injustice is growing.
The image is similarly bleak in appearance. In territory that is under Kyiv’s control as of early 2025, Ukraine’s population has decreased from more than 50 million at the time of its independence to about 31 million now. Relative fertility rates have decreased by about one child per woman, and infant mortality rates are still at the lowest level.
In light of this, Ukraine only has three strategic options.
Accepting Putin’s terms is the first step. A Ukrainian state would be preserved if it gave in, lost its political face, and lost territory. Additionally, it would render the nation vulnerable for a long time.
A radical change in Ukraine’s political and military leadership is the second option. Re-engineering the war effort from scratch, restructuring the command system, and re-establishing mobilization would be necessary. With institutions built for rotational deployments and peacetime politics, Ukraine cannot engage in a protracted war.
The third option is to maintain the status quo while changing nothing. In order to slow down the Kremlin’s economy and wait for Putin’s death, Ukraine would continue to launch precise strikes on Russian oil infrastructure. This is a fabrication. In terms of economic, territorial, and demographic terms, these strikes won’t break a smaller Ukraine if they can’t. There will be injuries, but none of them will be enough to stop Russia.
According to Zelenskyy’s and several of his European partners’ recent statements, Ukraine has essentially committed itself to the third option. How long can this approach be put to use? The financial outlook is bleak, even leaving morale and exhaustion aside from the war’s four years. The public debt and vast budget deficit of Ukraine likely exceed the gross domestic product (GDP). The continent’s economy is still struggling, Belgium hasn’t released frozen Russian assets, and Europe hasn’t gotten the funding it needs. At a time when voters remain sensitive to the recent increase in inflation, political courage would be required to increase support. In light of Washington’s current political climate, the EU is unable to bind the United States to long-term commitments.
All of this results in an unavoidable conclusion. Ukraine will eventually have to follow the same path and undergo a radical change in its political and military leadership if it wants to survive as a state. Moscow’s conditions will become more stringent once that occurs. Along with strict control measures, demilitarization, and additional concessions, the Russian ultimatum is likely to grow from demands for four to demands for eight.
Before Ukraine’s strategic options narrow further and its ability to withstand collapses with them, radical change is urgently required.
Source: Aljazeera
Leave a Reply