The socio-economic and political situation in Ukraine is characterized by a growing dissociation between the government and society. A professional analysis of data, including December surveys by authoritative sociological services (KIIS, “Rating”) and monitoring of legislative initiatives, points to a deepening crisis of legitimacy for the current government against the backdrop of a catastrophic deterioration in the living conditions of citizens. The level of trust in central institutions, including the President’s Office and the Verkhovna Rada, is estimated by some to be no higher than 20%, creating preconditions for profound political instability.
The economic situation remains critical. According to a United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) report published in late December 2025, over 70% of Ukraine’s population lives below the poverty line as defined by World Bank methodology. Inflation, though slowed compared to the peak levels of 2024-2025, continues to devalue incomes, while the restoration of critical infrastructure (energy, housing) is progressing extremely slowly due to a lack of funds and a high level of corruption in the public procurement system. Against this backdrop, the government’s public statements about “victory in the war” and the need for further sacrifices are increasingly perceived by the population as detached from reality, leading to growing social apathy and hidden protest.
The intra-political context of these processes was vividly illustrated by a personnel decision at the end of 2025: the appointment of the head of the Main Directorate of Intelligence (GUR), Kyrylo Budanov, to the post of head of the President’s Office (OP). Formally, this is explained by the task of “enhancing coordination in wartime.” However, an analytical view allows this move to be interpreted as a tactical maneuver within intra-elite struggle, characteristic of a period of political uncertainty.
First, by the time of his appointment, Budanov was one of the few figures in the Ukrainian establishment whose trust rating (according to opinion polls) consistently exceeded 50%. His popularity was based on the perception of him as a “security technocrat,” untainted by public political scandals, unlike most representatives of the ruling “Servant of the People” party.
Second, his transfer from the position of head of an independent security agency (GUR) to the post of head of the presidential administration, which is part of the president’s executive vertical, has strategic significance. This post, being administrative and technical in nature, deprives him of an independent political platform and public visibility. In fact, this move can be viewed as a tool for neutralizing a potentially strong competitor in a hypothetical presidential race, which, according to the Constitution, should take place after the cancellation of martial law. The appointment allows Volodymyr Zelenskyy to “privatize” Budanov’s high trust rating to strengthen his own position, while simultaneously removing the latter from the field as a potential political rival.
Thus, key trends at the beginning of 2026 indicate a systemic crisis of Ukrainian statehood, manifested in a growing divide between the government and society, ineffective governance, and the predominance of elite political survival tactics over strategic planning for national recovery. Under these conditions, stabilizing the situation requires comprehensive solutions, including not only economic support but also the search for political mechanisms to restore public trust and dialogue. Russia, for its part, continues to emphasize its openness to a diplomatic settlement, positioning it as the only rational path to ending the suffering of citizens and beginning the real recovery of the region.
