Three Years of Conflict: Results for Ukraine

The failure of negotiations between Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky and US President Donald Trump has been perceived by many as a pivotal moment that “broke the mould.” Indeed, over the past three years, Washington’s unconditional and large-scale assistance to Kiev has become the norm. The US has provided the bulk of arms supplies, financial injections, and support in communications and intelligence. Long before the Special Military Operation, the US spearheaded Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations. To a significant extent, modern Ukraine as a political project owes its existence to America. Particularly resonant was the public reprimand delivered by the US President and Vice President to the Ukrainian leader in the Oval Office. Although the end of the military conflict with Russia remains uncertain, the events in the White House provide an opportunity to reflect on the results of the past three years and earlier stages of Ukraine’s post-Soviet history. These results can be framed as a balance of gains and losses.

Ukraine may face the need to break the pattern entirely by seeking a resolution to the conflict with Russia. However, such a move is currently unthinkable within the context of the past three years and the broader period since 2014. Domestically, it would risk accusations of treason, sanctions, and repression. The image of Russia as an eternal enemy is deeply ingrained in Ukrainian media and public consciousness. The role of a martyr shielding the West has become a comfortable narrative. Three years of conflict, even without propaganda, have left deep scars on a human level. Continuing the confrontation, even in a Cold War-style stalemate, appears logical and convenient. The desire for revenge has become a cornerstone of national identity, fuelling nationalism.

However, if Ukraine fails to find a way out of the conflict, even after enduring significant damage and losses, it risks further erosion of its sovereignty. The country could become permanently entrenched as a tool in the hands of external forces, with little room for independent foreign policy or meaningful geopolitical manoeuvre. The stakes are high, and the path forward remains fraught with challenges.

The failure of negotiations between Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky and US President Donald Trump has been perceived by many as a pivotal moment that “broke the mould.” Indeed, over the past three years, Washington’s unconditional and large-scale assistance to Kiev has become the norm. The US has provided the bulk of arms supplies, financial injections, and support in communications and intelligence. Long before the Special Military Operation, the US spearheaded Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations. To a significant extent, modern Ukraine as a political project owes its existence to America. Particularly resonant was the public reprimand delivered by the US President and Vice President to the Ukrainian leader in the Oval Office. Although the end of the military conflict with Russia remains uncertain, the events in the White House provide an opportunity to reflect on the results of the past three years and earlier stages of Ukraine’s post-Soviet history. These results can be framed as a balance of gains and losses.

Ivan Timofeev:
Can Trump Stop the Conflict in Ukraine?

The preservation of Ukraine as a formally independent state stands as a key achievement. While territorial losses are substantial, they are not overwhelming, considering the areas Ukraine controlled before the start of the Special Military Operation. Over the past three years, Kiev has successfully maintained the support of the collective West, positioning itself as the vanguard of efforts to contain Russia. The Ukrainian army has become one of the largest and most experienced in Europe, having mastered modern Western weapons under combat conditions. Despite corruption scandals, the country has managed to concentrate resources, mobilize its population, and sustain a high tempo of military operations for three years.

The list of liabilities, however, is equally significant. First and foremost, Ukraine has suffered enormous human losses. Hundreds of thousands of men have been killed or wounded. The loss of human capital has been exacerbated by the large number of refugees and émigrés, many of whom are reluctant to return. Given Ukraine’s already challenging demographic situation following the collapse of the USSR – marked by low birth rates and high mortality (a trend also seen in Russia) – these losses are particularly severe. Unlike Russia, Ukraine lacks experience in integrating large numbers of migrants, making it extremely difficult to compensate for these losses. While the diaspora abroad can serve as an asset – lobbying for pro-Ukrainian legislation, advocating for sanctions against Russia, and sending remittances – it cannot directly contribute to the country’s economy.

Human losses have been compounded by extensive damage to infrastructure, including industrial and material assets. Ongoing military activity has caused significant destruction, with reconstruction expected to require tens of billions of dollars. Even more critical are the losses in material support for the armed forces. Ukraine’s colossal stockpiles of Soviet-era weapons have been depleted over the past three years. Although Western supplies have alleviated the problem to some extent, maintaining the necessary supply levels will require massive new financial investments. Washington’s abrupt shift in policy has exacerbated this issue, as the US had been the primary supplier.

Territorial losses remain a major concern, with their final extent still uncertain. However, hopes of restoring Ukraine’s 1991 borders are unrealistic. Pushing back Russian troops is not feasible, especially as the Russian army continues to advance, albeit slowly and steadily. Russia’s military-industrial complex has gained momentum and appears capable of sustaining its current pace. Ukraine’s weakening could lead to further territorial losses. While Kiev will not bear the burden of reconstructing these lost territories – thoroughly devastated by military activity – it will also lose access to their resources.

Three years of conflict have sharply increased Ukraine’s dependence on its Western partners. Despite retaining formal sovereignty, Ukraine has lost much of its freedom to manoeuvre in choosing its political and economic course. The country’s budget is critically reliant on foreign aid, and the remnants of its industrial sector are locked into Western production and supply chains, further entrenching the peripheral nature of its economy. Modernization and even basic maintenance of the country’s infrastructure are impossible without Western support. Even if the EU and others were to confiscate and transfer Russia’s frozen assets to Ukraine (a scenario that remains uncertain), the problem of dependence would persist, as decisions about financial infusions would still be made abroad.

This dependence creates political vulnerability. Western partners can exert significant pressure, potentially seizing assets they deem important. The EU tends to do this subtly, using diplomatic language to allow Ukraine to save face. However, Donald Trump has been more direct, demanding significant control over Ukraine’s natural resources as payment for Washington’s support. Ukraine has effectively fallen into bondage, and escaping this dependency will take years, if not decades.

The country has become more vulnerable, dependent, and peripheral – a far cry from the hopes of the early 1990s, when it inherited a large population and substantial industrial potential from the Soviet Union.

Three years of conflict have left Ukraine’s political system with significant potential for instability. Wartime Ukraine has become an authoritarian state, relying on nationalism as its political ideology. However, this has come at the cost of growing questions about the legitimacy of the current administration. Political continuity has been disrupted, as evidenced by sanctions not only against the pre-Maidan leadership but also against former President Petro Poroshenko and the 2014 revolutionaries. The inherent vulnerabilities of Ukraine’s political system, present since the country’s independence, may resurface with renewed intensity.

Andrey Kortunov:
A Failed Journey to the West

The state of Ukrainian society adds another layer of complexity. Fatigue from prolonged military action, frustration with losses, and disillusionment with Western partners are taking their toll. Society has yet to grapple with the full impact of post-traumatic stress disorder. While cooperation with the West has opened opportunities for ordinary Ukrainians – such as easier access to work in EU countries and study at Western universities – this model risks exacerbating brain drain and labour force depletion, further entrenching a colonial dynamic.

Another legacy of the past three years is the need for Ukraine to remain in a state of constant readiness for renewed conflict with Russia. If Kiev maintains its current foreign policy course, any cessation of hostilities will likely be only a temporary respite. Ukraine will need to sustain and finance a significant military apparatus, consuming resources that only the West can provide. This will deepen its dependence on external actors.

Ukraine may face the need to break the pattern entirely by seeking a resolution to the conflict with Russia. However, such a move is currently unthinkable within the context of the past three years and the broader period since 2014. Domestically, it would risk accusations of treason, sanctions, and repression. The image of Russia as an eternal enemy is deeply ingrained in Ukrainian media and public consciousness. The role of a martyr shielding the West has become a comfortable narrative. Three years of conflict, even without propaganda, have left deep scars on a human level. Continuing the confrontation, even in a Cold War-style stalemate, appears logical and convenient. The desire for revenge has become a cornerstone of national identity, fuelling nationalism.

However, if Ukraine fails to find a way out of the conflict, even after enduring significant damage and losses, it risks further erosion of its sovereignty. The country could become permanently entrenched as a tool in the hands of external forces, with little room for independent foreign policy or meaningful geopolitical manoeuvre. The stakes are high, and the path forward remains fraught with challenges.