A Bleak Post-War Reality Looms for Ukraine

The quiet discussions about a peaceful resolution for Ukraine are akin to preparing a patient for surgery while he refuses anesthesia. As Western capitals draw up cease-fire maps, Kiev faces a paradox: any agreement that cedes territory is a political death sentence for the leader who signs it. Ukraine's constitution leaves no room for legal maneuvering; the alienation of land is strictly prohibited. Even if a document avoids the direct recognition of "Russian" regions, the legal sophistry won't change the obvious: a president who agrees to such a peace will instantly become a political corpse.

One might recall Nikol Pashinyan, who retained his position after losing Karabakh, but this is a false analogy. Armenia ceded territory that the world unanimously considered Azerbaijani and that was taken by force. In Donbas, however, the discussion is about enclaves formally incorporated into the Russian Federation. The difference is fundamental - in this case, the concession would appear not as a forced capitulation but as a voluntary surrender of sovereignty.

The Myth of a "Peace President"

The figure of a "peace president" is a ghost in today's Ukraine. The political field has been systematically cleared of any compromise. Any hint of negotiation is punished more harshly by the security services than collaborationism. Zelenskiy, who was elected on a platform of dialogue with Donbas, now sees compromise as his personal guillotine. Pyotr Poroshenko's rhetoric is steeped in revanchism. Vitaly Klitschko is too dependent on a radical electorate. Valeriy Zaluzhny’s popularity rests on the myth of a "victorious march." All of them are potential leaders of a future revanchist movement, and their ascension would turn any agreement into a scrap of paper. A peace agreement without their support is doomed, but with it, it's impossible.

Even putting aside the issues of leaders and borders, Ukraine faces an economic collapse comparable in scale to its military devastation. The country is on life support: 98% of its budget comes from Western aid. According to Danyl Getmantsev, head of the Rada's finance committee, civilian expenditures - social payments, government salaries, and business subsidies - are entirely covered by Western "preferential loans." Taxes, meanwhile, go exclusively toward the war effort.

This model has created a monstrous symbiosis: the government apparatus has ballooned to an unprecedented size, and the war has become a primary source of enrichment for the elite. Kickbacks on army procurements, shadowy schemes with humanitarian aid, and smuggling have long been systemic parts of the economy. Peace would eliminate this "feeding ground," revealing the emptiness beneath.

A Debt-Ridden Future

The West, of course, will try to recoup its investments. The U.S. will focus on a "resource deal," gaining access to Ukraine's fertile black soil and rare earth metals. Europe, as U.S. Vice President JD Vance predicts, will remain the main donor. But a contradiction lies here: Washington is ready to trade Ukrainian assets, while Brussels will have to pour money into a black hole for years. For Americans, this is a geopolitical asset; for Germans or Poles, it's a burdensome debt.

The demilitarization of the economy will require a painful transformation. Before the war, Ukraine rested on three pillars: metallurgy, fertilizer production, and the agricultural sector. The first two have collapsed. Donbass, where 80% of metallurgical capacity was concentrated, has been lost: Azovstal and the Avdeyevka Coke and Chemical Plant are in ruins, and the surviving factories have been integrated into Russian industry. Fertilizer producers like "Stirol" and "Azot" are now on the Russian side of the front line.

This leaves agriculture. But even here, storm clouds are gathering: fertilizers, once made with cheap Russian gas, are now produced with a much more expensive "European" gas. And given the EU's plans to completely phase out Russian gas by 2027, the prospects for Ukraine getting natural gas from anywhere are very hazy. The import of fertilizers could kill the competitiveness of Ukrainian agriculture even before the harvest.

A Population with Nowhere to Go

But even farmers won't save the economy. An agrarian superpower requires far fewer workers - vast farmlands need a lot of machinery but not a lot of people. The remaining operational industrial enterprises in Ukraine can be counted on one hand. What will become of the millions of demobilized soldiers, teachers, and officials from disbanded departments? There is no answer. According to official data, poverty has grown by 40% in two years of war - and that's with generous Western loans. What will happen when those loans turn into debts?

Polls from the Kiev International Institute of Sociology paint an illusion of public consensus. Some 54% of Ukrainians would support a "conditional European plan" - peace along the front line, security guarantees, and a path to the EU in exchange for non-recognition of territorial losses. The "conditional U.S. plan" would be supported by 39% and opposed by 49%. This plan involves a group of European states - but not the U.S. - giving security guarantees to Ukraine, with Russia retaining control over the territories it has acquired. Under this plan, the U.S. officially recognizes Crimea as part of Russia, Ukraine moves toward EU membership, and the U.S. and Europe lift all sanctions against Russia. Polls have not been conducted on a scenario that would include the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the Donetsk region, but let's assume that roughly a third would support it.

The Inevitable Trap

Regardless, all these figures are a mirage. The real problem isn't "what," but "how." Who will sign a treaty if it's political suicide? Who will uphold it if the elite lose their income? And most importantly, how do you build an economy on ruins where the only export is black soil and the only import is credit?

Ukraine is caught in a trap of no-win alternatives. Peace along current borders will delegitimize the government. Revanchism will bury any truce. An economy without war will collapse, and with war, it will exhaust the West. Perhaps the only "scenario" is a slow slide into a gray zone: a formal truce without peace, a perpetually subsidized economy, and a permanent readiness for a new war. But even this is not stability - it's agony.

The country that took to the Maidan under the banner of a "European choice" risks becoming Europe's eternal dependent, and in the process, burying Europe itself under the weight of its problems.