Ukraine Is Winning Time on the Battlefield, But Can It Win the Battle for Its Future?

Having lived and invested in Ukraine for more than three decades, I have witnessed this country’s remarkable transformation, its revolutions, economic crises, political disappointments and, above all, the extraordinary courage of its people. But I have also learned that patriotism should never prevent us from facing uncomfortable realities.

Recent analytical reports, economic assessments, military evaluations and public opinion surveys paint a picture that is both encouraging and deeply troubling. While interpretations and forecasts differ, a recurring concern emerges: Ukraine is demonstrating remarkable resilience on the battlefield while facing mounting economic, political, demographic and social pressures.

This contradiction deserves serious attention, particularly from those responsible for shaping Ukraine’s future. The question is no longer simply how long Ukraine can continue fighting, but what kind of country will emerge when the fighting eventually stops.

Military success does not necessarily mean strategic victory

There is no denying the extraordinary resilience of Ukraine’s armed forces. Against a much larger adversary, Ukrainian soldiers have repeatedly demonstrated ingenuity, determination and technological innovation.

Russian advances have slowed, and in certain areas Ukrainian forces have successfully counterattacked. The increasing use of drones, improved command structures and precision strikes has helped compensate for Russia’s numerical superiority.

Other Topics of Interest

Moscow Eyes European Security Overhaul in Talks With US Envoys

Moscow aims to use upcoming Abu Dhabi talks to push maximalist demands on NATO rollbacks, frozen assets, and European security architectures.

But military achievements come at a price.

Every successful counterattack requires soldiers, equipment, ammunition and money. Russia, despite its own enormous losses, possesses a larger population, substantial industrial capacity and the ability to sustain a prolonged war of attrition.

Meanwhile, Russia has increasingly shifted its attention towards destroying the economic foundations that allow Ukraine to continue fighting.

Power stations, ports, railways, industrial enterprises and logistics centers are no longer simply collateral victims of the war. They have become central targets.

I know from personal experience how difficult it is to operate businesses in a country where electricity supplies, transport connections and the security of industrial facilities can no longer be taken for granted.

A country may successfully defend its territory while gradually losing the economic capacity to sustain that defense.

That is the danger Ukraine must confront.

Ukrainians want peace, but not capitulation

Perhaps one of the most revealing developments concerns the changing attitudes of ordinary Ukrainians.

According to a Rating Group survey conducted in early October, 57% of respondents favor ending hostilities through negotiations and compromise, compared with only 12% in February 2023.

Even more significantly, 56% would consider territorial concessions in exchange for a lasting peace backed by credible American and European security guarantees.

Another 68% believe that any territorial settlement should be approved through a nationwide referendum.

These figures should not be interpreted as surrender.

Ukrainians have demonstrated beyond any doubt that they are prepared to defend their country. But after years of destruction, displacement, casualties and uncertainty, many understandably want to know what realistic political outcome their sacrifices are intended to achieve.

There is a difference between refusing to surrender and refusing to negotiate.

Unfortunately, discussing possible compromises remains politically dangerous in Ukraine. Anyone suggesting negotiations risks being accused of undermining national interests.

Yet negotiations do not automatically mean accepting Russian demands. They mean recognizing that wars ultimately require political solutions, even when those solutions are imperfect.

Recent political assessments suggest that Ukrainian society may be moving towards this recognition faster than its political leadership.

That gap deserves attention.

Washington is pursuing its own interests

Another uncomfortable reality is that Ukraine cannot assume its international partners will always place Ukrainian interests above their own.

Recent diplomatic assessments point to a potentially significant shift in Washington’s approach towards Moscow, particularly through reported US-Russian energy arrangements and discussions about easing certain economic sanctions.

There are indications that Washington is increasingly willing to explore commercial agreements with Russia without necessarily obtaining corresponding concessions over Ukraine.

Whether every detail of these reported negotiations proves accurate remains to be seen. But the underlying lesson is clear.

America has its own elections, economic priorities, energy concerns and strategic interests. Europe has its own financial limitations, political divisions and growing public fatigue.

Ukraine’s survival depends heavily on these partners, but their interests will not always coincide with Kyiv’s.

It would be dangerous to build a national strategy on the assumption that external assistance will remain unlimited or unconditional.

Ukraine needs strong allies. But it also needs sufficient diplomatic flexibility to protect its interests when those allies change direction.

Europe’s support is essential, but is it sustainable?

Europe has become Ukraine’s indispensable financial and political supporter.

Yet European governments face increasingly difficult choices.

Their economies are under pressure, defense expenditure is rising, and the financial requirements of supporting Ukraine extend well beyond current budget cycles.

Economic projections cited in recent assessments put Ukraine’s external financing requirements for 2027 at approximately $91 billion, with a substantial portion still unidentified.

Public debt is projected to reach approximately 114% of GDP.

These are alarming figures.

Of course, wartime economies cannot be judged by ordinary peacetime standards. But eventually, emergency financing must give way to productive economic activity.

Loans, grants and military assistance can keep a government functioning. They cannot indefinitely substitute for factories producing goods, businesses generating profits, workers paying taxes and investors creating employment.

Even if the guns fell silent tomorrow, Ukraine would still face an enormous reconstruction challenge.

And reconstruction requires much more than international conferences and impressive financial pledges.

It requires confidence.

Corruption and governance cannot wait until the war ends

For decades, Ukraine has struggled with corruption, weak institutions, inconsistent enforcement of laws and uncertainty surrounding property rights.

The war has understandably pushed many domestic reforms into the background. But it has not made these problems disappear.

On the contrary, the enormous sums required for reconstruction make institutional credibility more important than ever.

Foreign investors will not commit billions simply because Ukraine needs rebuilding.

They will ask whether their investments are protected, whether courts are independent, whether contracts are enforceable and whether government institutions respect legitimate ownership rights.

These are not theoretical questions.

I have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Ukraine over the years, and I know how much potential this country possesses. I also know how damaging arbitrary administrative decisions, corruption and legal uncertainty can be to investor confidence.

If Ukraine wants private capital to finance its recovery, it must demonstrate that the rule of law applies equally to everyone, including the state itself.

International sympathy may attract financial assistance. Only trust, predictable laws and credible institutions will attract sustainable investment.

The demographic crisis may prove even more dangerous

There is another problem that receives far less attention than battlefield developments.

People.

Millions of Ukrainians have left the country. Many are building new lives abroad, educating their children, establishing businesses and finding employment.

Some will return after the war. Others may not.

Demographic estimates indicate that Ukraine’s working-age population in government-controlled territory has declined substantially since 2022.

This creates a fundamental question: who will rebuild Ukraine?

Reconstruction requires engineers, technicians, construction workers, doctors, teachers, entrepreneurs and skilled industrial workers.

Money alone cannot replace an entire generation of lost human capital.

Ukraine must therefore create conditions that encourage its citizens to return.

That means security, certainly. But it also means decent salaries, functioning schools, healthcare, reliable infrastructure and genuine economic opportunity.

A rebuilt country without enough people to inhabit and develop it would be a tragic outcome.

Peace must be more than the absence of war

Several geopolitical assessments suggest that a comprehensive ceasefire remains unlikely in the immediate future, with some forecasts extending into spring 2027, although limited arrangements involving energy infrastructure and Black Sea shipping may be possible sooner.

Predictions about the timing of peace should always be treated cautiously. Too many forecasts during this war have proved wrong.

Nevertheless, one conclusion deserves emphasis: A ceasefire alone will not solve Ukraine’s problems. It will not automatically restore destroyed factories, bring back millions of refugees, repair damaged infrastructure or persuade investors to risk their capital. Nor will it eliminate the threat of renewed Russian aggression.

A sustainable peace must therefore combine credible security guarantees with economic recovery, institutional reform and a realistic strategy for national development.

Ukraine needs not merely a plan for ending the war, but a serious plan for what comes afterwards.

Ukraine must begin thinking beyond the battlefield

I have never doubted the courage of the Ukrainian people. Their resistance has astonished the world. But courage, however extraordinary, cannot replace economic planning, sound governance and effective diplomacy.

The real question is no longer simply whether Ukraine can prevent Russia from achieving its military objectives. It is whether Ukraine can emerge from this war as a secure, economically viable, democratic and prosperous country.

That requires difficult conversations, including conversations about negotiations, territorial realities, reconstruction financing, corruption and the limits of international assistance.

These subjects should not be treated as taboo.

Patriotism is not measured by how loudly we reject uncomfortable questions. Sometimes it is measured by our willingness to ask them.

Ukraine has already demonstrated that it knows how to fight for its survival. Now it must demonstrate that it knows how to secure its future.

Because ultimately, the greatest victory would not simply be preventing Russia from winning the war. It would be ensuring that Ukraine does not lose its future in the process of fighting it.