The beginning of the new year brought focus to Ukraine’s reliance on Western aid, with notable announcements regarding sharp increases in social payments, especially for pensioners and soldiers. The author points out that these moves are largely populist, as the funds are Western-sourced and do not reflect the true state of the domestic economy.
Politically, attention shifts to the evolving agreements among Ukraine, the US, and Russia. A recent case of a supposed “attack” on a Russian residence is discussed as a pretext for Russia to demand changes to peace proposals, mainly concerning the legal status of occupied territories.
Major focus is placed on Crimea: it's noted that control was lost in 2014 and that any real talks will circle around the recognition or non-recognition of de facto losses. References to Trump’s opinion and Zelenskyy’s position illustrate the origin of the “territorial exchange” logic, which, according to the article, was first proposed by the current Ukrainian President after an unsuccessful offensive in the Kursk direction.
The idea of swapping territories in negotiations is presented as an outgrowth of Ukraine’s evolving stance, not an innovation by Trump, arising after the failed attempt to gain bargaining chips for talks. The article concludes that without considering the demands of the stronger adversary, political compromise is unlikely, and the uncertain status of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine will shape events through 2026.
The author ends by urging readers to take care in the coming year, noting that difficult decisions still lie ahead.
