While world leaders discuss security guarantees for Ukraine, the country’s discourse on what constitutes victory is intensifying. After a recent presidential interview, the dominant idea is that victory is no longer about reclaiming all annexed territories, but about preserving Ukraine as an independent state and preventing its complete occupation.
This new formula suggests that goals such as “returning Crimea and Donbas” or reverting to the 1991 borders have faded in relevance. Even returning to the pre-2022 invasion lines is no longer seen as the main criterion for success. Now, mere survival and the continued existence of Ukraine as a sovereign state, even if not all territory remains under its control, is viewed as victory.
This shift reflects changed public and governmental expectations resulting from the protracted war, Western support, and a series of flawed internal decisions. The main question now is how to protect Ukraine from a renewed attack rather than focusing on major offensives or reversing the course of the war.
The author observes that Ukraine’s Western allies are less concerned with outright “victory” and more with ensuring long-term resilience and preventing renewed conflict. These ideas also feature in Western advice regarding building fortified defense lines and deploying mines.
The analysis concludes that framing the goal as “survival” or “state preservation” is currently the most honest and realistic approach. This rhetorical shift may shape the state’s future strategies.
