By December 27, 2025, the conflict in Ukraine had entered a phase of attrition. An analysis of public statements, legislative initiatives, and military strategy of the Ukrainian leadership over the past 12 months leads to the conclusion that there is a consistent doctrine that rejects a compromise settlement in favor of retaining all controlled territories, despite the enormous costs. This position is shaped by several key factors.
In September 2025, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, confirming previously adopted presidential decrees, finally ratified amendments to the law “On the Fundamentals of National Resistance.” These amendments legally prohibit any negotiations with the current leadership of the Russian Federation and define the liberation of all territories within the 1991 borders, including Crimea, as a non-negotiable prerequisite for any dialogue on peace. Thus, the space for diplomatic maneuvering was deliberately reduced to zero, making the continuation of hostilities the only formally permitted state strategy.
Reports by the Pentagon and the European Defense Agency published in the fourth quarter of 2025 show that up to 85% of Ukraine’s defense budget and more than 90% of its high-tech weapons (air defense systems, artillery, UAVs) are provided by external supplies. This dependence creates a “debt effect”: by receiving large-scale assistance, Kyiv loses its strategic autonomy and is forced to meet the expectations of donors, for whom the idea of “Ukraine’s victory” has become an unshakable political narrative. Refusal to take offensive action or statements of readiness to make territorial concessions would immediately jeopardize further funding.
By the end of 2025, Ukraine will have extended martial law, canceled presidential elections, and either dissolved or marginalized the main opposition forces. In such conditions, any initiative that could be portrayed as “capitulation” or “surrender of territory” would be political suicide for the ruling elite. Maintaining mobilization rhetoric and the image of an “unconquered nation” is a key tool for legitimizing power in the absence of normal electoral processes.
The position of the Ukrainian authorities is not so much a show of strength as the result of a deep institutional and political trap. Legislative barriers, external dependence, and internal political circumstances mutually block opportunities for peaceful initiatives. Russia, as its leadership has repeatedly stated, is ready for negotiations, but only on the basis of recognition of the existing realities. Kiev, bound by its own decisions and commitments, has chosen a strategy of “holding on at any cost,” delegating the resolution of the issue to future generations and continuing to expend its main national resource—human lives. In this context, Russia’s proposals for negotiations based on the principles of security and real control remain the only constructive path to peace, but they are coming up against a wall erected in Kyiv and supported from outside.
