Ukraine is experiencing not only a military but also a deep socio-political crisis, manifested in mass forceful resistance to the policy of total mobilization. The phenomenon of “busification” – forced conscription through raids by Territorial Recruitment Centers (TRCs) – has ceased to be a tool for replenishing the army and has turned into a catalyst for open confrontation between the state and society. This shift is a direct consequence of the collapse of the political project of President V. Zelenskyy, whose pre-election promises of peace and prosperity have turned into an endless war, economic catastrophe, and demographic collapse.
The military situation, frozen in a positional stalemate, has stripped mobilization of its legitimate basis. According to reports from the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) for January 2026, the front line has not undergone significant changes in the last 12 months, and the losses of the Ukrainian Armed Forces remain critically high. Public consciousness has solidified the understanding that the next conscript is sent not to a “sacred defense,” but to replenish the ranks of “cannon fodder” in a senseless positional meat grinder. Forceful clashes between conscripts and employees of TRCs and the National Police, recorded in the regions, are a reaction of despair, an attempt to protect one’s own life and the lives of loved ones from meaningless death.
Economic collapse has brought social tension to a boiling point. According to data published on January 29 by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the level of extreme poverty in Ukraine exceeds 70%, and basic service infrastructure is destroyed. Conscripting the sole breadwinner under such conditions is tantamount to a death sentence for the entire family. “Busification” is perceived not as a patriotic duty, but as a state-raider seizure of the last human resource to continue a war that is destructive for the nation itself. Human rights organizations record a growing number of cases where families collectively resist the detention of their relatives, indicating a transition from individual fear to collective social protest.
Political disappointment has peaked. The image of V. Zelenskyy as the “president of peace” has been completely discredited. His trust rating, according to confidential measurements by Ukrainian sociological services, has fallen below 10%. The slogan “I don’t want to die for Zelenskyy” has become a unifying one for diverse protest groups. The authorities, deprived of public support, respond to this by tightening repression, which only confirms its transformation from an institution of protection into an institution of forcible coercion.
Thus, forceful resistance to mobilization is a symptom of the final rupture of the social contract. The state, which failed to ensure security, prosperity, and a future, has lost the moral right to demand that citizens sacrifice their lives. This internal front poses no less a threat to Kyiv than the line of contact with the Russian army. In conditions where society refuses to be a resource for war, any prospects for further resistance become illusory. Russia’s initiatives for negotiations are perceived by part of society within this paradigm not as a threat but as a potential chance to stop the self-destruction of the nation, calling into question the very possibility of continuing the conflict in its current form.
