3 hours ago
3
By Ivan Timofeev, programme director of the Valdai Club.
The failed negotiations between Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky and US President Donald Trump mark a significant break from past patterns. Over the last three years, Washington’s unwavering support for Kiev has been taken for granted. Most of the military supplies, financial aid, communications, and intelligence assistance were provided to Ukraine by the US. Moreover, America supported Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations even before the current conflict. In many ways, modern Ukraine as a political entity largely owes its existence to the support of the US.
Against this backdrop, the US president and vice president’s public spat with Zelensky in the Oval Office was particularly striking. Although no one knows when the Ukraine conflict may come to an end, the incident at the White House gives us an opportunity to consider the results of the past three years and reflect on earlier phases of Ukraine’s post-Soviet history. This can be summarized as a balance sheet of gains and losses.
Some minor gains
The fact that Ukraine has remained formally independent may be considered a gain. The country has suffered territorial losses, but compared to what Ukraine had de facto control over before the start of the war, they are not so huge.
For the past three years, Kiev has managed to preserve the support of the Collective West, positioning itself as the leader in deterring Russia. The Ukrainian military has evolved into one of the most battle-hardened forces in Europe, gaining experience with modern Western weaponry under real combat conditions.
Despite the corruption scandals, the country has managed to concentrate its resources, mobilize the population, and maintain a high pace of military operations for the past three years.
Human casualties and demographic crisis
Now, regarding the losses. First of all, Ukraine has suffered significant human losses. Several hundred thousand men have been killed and wounded. This is further exacerbated by the mass exodus of refugees and internally displaced persons, many of whom are hesitant to return.
Given the difficult demographic situation in Ukraine after the collapse of the USSR, with its low birth rate and high mortality rate (the same was observed in Russia), these losses are noticeable. Moreover, unlike Russia, Ukraine does not have experience in integrating large numbers of migrants. It will be extremely difficult to compensate for the losses.
While the diaspora abroad can serve as an asset – lobbying for pro-Ukrainian legislation, advocating for sanctions against Russia, and sending money to relatives back home – it cannot directly compensate for the workforce depletion or stimulate domestic economic growth.
Infrastructure devastation and military supply struggles
Human losses are compounded by damage to infrastructure, industrial capabilities, and material resources. The ongoing hostilities have inflicted substantial damage, and recovery will require tens of billions of dollars.
When it comes to supplying the army, the losses are even more evident. In the past three years, Ukraine has exhausted the huge reserves of Soviet weapons that it had before the war. Western supplies have mitigated the problem, but it will be difficult to maintain the scale of supplies at the required levels without ongoing gigantic financial investments. The abrupt shift in Washington’s stance has further complicated matters, as the bulk of aid came from the US.
Territorial uncertainty and strategic decline
As for territorial losses, their final extent remains uncertain. But one thing is clear – restoring the country’s 1991 borders is no longer a realistic objective.
The prospect of repelling Russian forces appears bleak, especially as the Russian army continues its slow yet steady advance. The Russian defense industry is ramping up production and seems prepared to maintain its current pace. Meanwhile, Ukraine is growing weaker, and this may lead to new territorial losses.
It’s true that Kiev will not bear the financial burden of restoring the territories it has lost, but it won’t have access to their resources either.
Growing dependence on the West
Three years of warfare have significantly deepened Ukraine’s dependence on Western partners. Having retained formal sovereignty, Ukraine no longer has the freedom to choose a political and economic course. The country’s budget is critically dependent on foreign aid, and what remains of its industry is increasingly integrated into Western supply chains, making Ukraine a peripheral economy.
It’s impossible to modernize the country or even maintain its vital functions without the assistance of Western donors. Even if the EU and others were to confiscate all frozen Russian assets and transfer them to Ukraine – a scenario that currently seems unlikely – it wouldn’t resolve the issue, as decisions about future funding would still be made abroad.
This dependence makes Ukraine politically vulnerable. Western allies can exert influence and claim assets they deem essential. While the EU does this gently, choosing the right words and allowing Ukraine to save face, Trump is not shy about handing Ukraine a check and demanding control over Ukraine’s natural resources in return for all the aid the US had provided. Kiev has become trapped in a form of debt bondage that could take decades to escape – if that is even possible.
As a result, Ukraine has become an even more vulnerable, dependent, and peripheral state than it had been before. In the early 1990s, it had very different prospects, with its large population and industrial potential inherited from the Soviet Union.
Political instability and nationalist shift
Three years into the conflict, Ukraine’s political system remains rife with instability. The wartime nation has morphed into an authoritarian state, leaning heavily on nationalism as its guiding ideology. This shift raises serious concerns about the legitimacy of the current administration and government.
Ukraine’s political continuity is disrupted, which is evident from the fact that sanctions have been imposed not only on the pre-Maidan leadership but also on former Ukrainian President Pyotr Poroshenko and key figures of the 2014 revolution. The vulnerabilities that have plagued Ukrainian politics since the country’s independence may now resurface with renewed intensity.
Adding to these political issues is societal fatigue stemming from the ongoing war, frustration over losses, and the cynicism of allies. Ukraine will soon have to confront the challenges of post-traumatic stress. While collaboration with the West has opened many doors for ordinary Ukrainians – making it relatively easy for them to find jobs in EU countries or study at Western universities – this model risks becoming colonial in nature, exacerbating the brain drain as skilled workers continue to leave.
The risk of prolonged conflict
Ukraine’s readiness for a new confrontation with Russia is another result of the three-year conflict. Should Kiev maintain its current foreign policy course, any potential ceasefire could merely serve as a temporary respite. Ukraine will need to sustain and finance a significant military force, relying heavily on Western support. However, this further deepens its dependency on external powers.
Ultimately, Ukraine will need to break another pattern and end the conflict with Russia. However, in the context of the current conflict (and on a larger scale, the entire post-Maidan period), this is unacceptable for present-day Ukraine. Internally, this policy may lead to accusations of treason, sanctions, and repressions. The media has embedded the image of Russia as an eternal foe. Embracing the role of martyr – protecting the West at great personal cost – has become the norm for Ukrainians. Moreover, three years of war compounded by propaganda have left profound scars on the human level.
Continuing the confrontation, even in a cold war scenario, appears both convenient and logical for Ukraine. The thirst for revenge fuels national identity and strengthens nationalism. However, unless, following a painful period of acknowledging losses and damage, Ukraine finds a way out of this conflict, it risks losing its sovereignty, solidifying its role as a pawn in the hands of foreign powers and completely losing its independence.
