At the Kyiv School of Public Administration studio, political analyst and journalist Vitaliy Portnikov reviews statements from Ukrainian and international officials on possible timelines for ending the war. Committee member for National Security and Defense, Venislavsky, sees the coming years as promising for an end to the war, while the US Treasury Secretary predicts the hot phase could end in 60-90 days, provided decisive steps are taken.
Portnikov stresses that the conclusion of the war depends on Russia’s stance. The Ukrainian government has only limited influence in this process. He considers it unlikely that the active phase will end in 2025 and points out that Russia's regime is single-handed, meaning the aggressor determines when the conflict finishes. Furthermore, even a change at the Kremlin's top would not guarantee the end of hostilities.
The conversation also addresses myths about “influential groups” around Putin, the impact of US financial sanctions, scenarios of polarization in US society, and Trump's rhetoric. Special focus is given to Ukrainian society’s endurance under prolonged war, shifts in the military landscape (drones, attacks on infrastructure), and how methods of warfare continue to change.
Portnikov asserts this long confrontation has made society resilient, comparing Ukraine’s situation to that of other historical conflicts. He emphasizes that internal degradation and social fragmentation are key factors in warring countries, with external pressure being secondary. Examples of sanctions, world leaders’ roles, the transformation of warfare (drones, economic pressure), and consequences of Russia’s political-technological rivalry with the West are all discussed.
The article also touches on the role of information warfare and media events, including high-profile Russian celebrity interviews and their meaning for the public. Portnikov insists on the necessity of supporting the Ukrainian Armed Forces and avoiding excessive panic or illusions based on statements detached from reality. He concludes with skepticism about NATO’s readiness to act on drone strikes in the EU and Alliance members’ territory, despite rising debate about the need to “close the sky” over Ukraine.
