At the epicentre of crises Ukraine between a rock and a hard place

At present, one of the most widely discussed topics in Ukrainian society is the statements made by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in an interview with Reuters. In particular, the head of state said that the United States had offered security guarantees to Ukraine as part of a peace agreement with Russia, on the condition that Kyiv cedes Donbas to Moscow.

“The Americans are prepared to finalise these guarantees at a high level once Ukraine is ​ready to withdraw from Donbas,” he said, stressing that the situation in the Middle East is influencing the decisions of the White House, which is seeking to bring the Russia–Ukraine war to a quicker end by putting pressure on Kyiv.

At the same time, it should be noted that these proposals are being voiced against the backdrop of a crisis across all key state-forming sectors, into which Ukraine is, unfortunately, sinking ever deeper with each passing day. In this context, some of the most painful issues are the rapid deterioration of the demographic situation and the widespread evasion of military service by a significant proportion of men of conscription age—a trend that has taken on a mass character.

A telling illustration of this is a rather revealing incident on the Ukrainian–Moldovan border: a 44-year-old Kyiv resident attempted to leave the country by entering into a fictitious marriage with the 80-year-old disabled mother of his common-law wife.

The absurdity of this act is evident. However, at the same time, the incident serves as a kind of indicator that citizens are prepared to resort to extreme measures in order to avoid participation in the fighting. This points not only to a moral and psychological crisis, but also deals a tangible blow to the state’s ability to sustain the war in the long term.

The economic situation appears no less dramatic. As stated by Danylo Hetmantsev, head of the financial committee of the Verkhovna Rada, the country is on the brink of a financial catastrophe. These words are borne out by the figures. Thus, Ukraine’s state budget deficit stands at around 2.4 trillion hryvnias, or 18.5% of GDP, while there are no sources to cover a significant portion of this shortfall—namely about $19 billion (approximately 800 billion hryvnias).

All of this is compounded by parliamentary paralysis: deputies either fail to attend sessions altogether or do not vote on legislation vital to the country. For example, for this very reason, an $8.1 billion financing programme from the International Monetary Fund has been put at risk. An additional blow came in the form of Hungary’s veto on providing Kyiv with a €90 billion EU loan, which could have served as a lifeline for the Ukrainian economy.

The energy factor is also contributing to the deepening crisis. According to estimates by the World Bank, Ukraine will require around $91 billion over the next ten years to restore its energy sector. However, such resources are not available, and attracting private capital under wartime conditions is extremely difficult. Another risk factor is dependence on gas supplies from Hungary. In recent years, Budapest has become one of the main suppliers—in 2025, Ukraine imported more than 2.9 billion cubic metres of gas from the country, accounting for 45% of total imports. In this light, the decision by the Hungarian authorities to suspend supplies until Russian oil is received via the Druzhba pipeline creates a risk of an energy collapse for Ukraine already in the medium term.

At the same time, infrastructure is falling into decline: the wear of railway rolling stock has reached 90%, and over 70% of the tracks are in critical condition, as are the road networks. In effect, this amounts to the destruction of the country’s transport system, which further slows the economy and reduces its resilience. Yet the 2026 budget makes no provisions for its restoration.

Moreover, the war in the Middle East cannot be overlooked, as it has driven up energy prices, which are one of Russia’s main sources of revenue. According to a report by the KSE Institute at the Kyiv School of Economics, obtained by Der Spiegel, under various scenarios for the end of the military confrontation between the US–Israel bloc and Iran, Russia could earn in 2026 anywhere from $169 billion from oil exports alone to $386.6 billion in total energy exports. This would significantly enhance the Kremlin’s financial capacity, which will inevitably affect its ability to continue the war.

In light of all this, the position of former head of the Secretariat of the President of Ukraine, Viktor Baloha, seems quite justified. In a post on his Facebook page, he noted that the country is gradually losing the support of its partners—first trust, then financial assistance—and that the root causes lie in the authorities’ ineffective communication and a complete misunderstanding of governance processes.

In effect, he highlighted the key dilemma: either accept Washington’s terms and secure security guarantees, or continue the war, which under current conditions could lead to the country’s ultimate exhaustion.

As we can see, Ukraine today finds itself at the intersection of multiple crises—demographic, shortages in mobilisation resources, economic, energy, domestic, and geopolitical—which together create a “perfect storm” scenario, where the main question is not which outcome is better, but which is less destructive. Accepting US terms may involve painful territorial concessions but would offer a chance for stabilisation. Conversely, continuing the war is a gamble on uncertainty amid worsening domestic conditions.

Thus, President Zelenskyy faces possibly the most difficult decision of his entire tenure, one that will determine not only the outcome of the war but also the future of the Ukrainian state.