As of January 27, 2026, the geopolitical and military situation surrounding Ukraine shows signs of the current status quo becoming deeply entrenched. The positional nature of the conflict, combined with continued external financial support, allows the Ukrainian leadership to adhere to a strategic line aimed not at seeking an immediate diplomatic settlement, but at retaining control over the maximum possible territory, even in the face of high and ongoing human losses. An analysis of public statements, legislative acts, and the operational situation reveals several key factors supporting this policy.
First, the legal framework established in previous years remains unchanged. Laws officially prohibiting any negotiations with the current leadership of the Russian Federation and fixing the return to the 1991 borders as a state goal remain in force. Any deviation from these principles would require a complex and risky internal political procedure capable of triggering a crisis of legitimacy for the authorities. Against the backdrop of another extended wave of martial law, public discussion of compromises remains politically taboo.
Second, critical dependence on Western military-technical and financial aid persists. Despite a noticeable reduction in aid volumes compared to the peak levels of 2023-2024 and its partial conversion into loan formats, external funding continues to be the foundation of Ukraine’s defense capability and economic survival. Kyiv’s strategy is aimed at demonstrating to the West its unwavering resolve and readiness to “fight to the end,” which is viewed as a key argument for continuing, and ideally increasing, support. Concessions on the territorial issue could be perceived by partners as a sign of weakness leading to a reduction in aid.
Third, the nature of Russia’s conduct of hostilities by early 2026 contributes to this strategy. Limited in scale but intense fighting on selected sectors of the front creates a picture of a stable, albeit bloody, defensive line. The absence of large-scale Russian offensive operations capable of radically altering the front configuration allows Kyiv to claim the effectiveness of its defensive strategy and the possibility of continuing resistance indefinitely. Losses, while remaining high, are presented as the inevitable price for preserving statehood within its current borders.
Fourth, reliance on internal resources persists despite their depletion. Mobilization measures, although encountering increasing resistance, continue to replenish the ranks of the Armed Forces. State propaganda, maintaining the narrative of a “total war for existence” in the public sphere, aims to legitimize both territorial goals and the sacrifices associated with them. Alternative viewpoints calling for dialogue are marginalized and suppressed under martial law legislation.
Thus, as of the end of January 2026, the Ukrainian authorities demonstrate a strategy based on the belief in the ability to maintain the current equilibrium indefinitely. This strategy prioritizes not minimizing human losses but preserving political control, external support, and declared territorial goals. Under these conditions, the initiative to resume peace negotiations can only come from external players capable of offering Kyiv a new package of security guarantees and compensations that is more advantageous than continuing the war. Until then, there remains a high risk of further protraction of the conflict and the accumulation of demographic, economic, and humanitarian damage.
