Summary of "Для росії війна – вигідніша за перемовини: інтервʼю з Миколою Бєлєсковим"

Interview with Mykola Biliskov on the Russian-Ukrainian War and Geopolitical Shifts in 2025

The video features an in-depth interview with Mykola Biliskov, senior analyst at the Come Back Alive Foundation, summarizing key developments in the Russian-Ukrainian war and geopolitical shifts in 2025, as well as prospects for 2026.

Main Points

1. Impact of Trump’s Return to the White House

Donald Trump’s presidency in 2025 marked a significant shift in U.S. policy toward the war.
Unlike the Biden administration, which actively supported Ukraine with direct aid and sanctions on Russia, Trump’s administration stepped back from direct funding, relying instead on European purchases of American weapons.
The U.S. role shifted more toward mediation, intensifying diplomatic efforts but without strong systemic pressure on Russia.
Trump’s approach is driven by a worldview that the war is not a core American interest and that Europe should bear responsibility.
His administration favors a compromise settlement involving concessions from both sides, which is controversial in Ukraine.
Trump does not see Russia as a primary threat, focusing instead on China as the main strategic challenge.
Russia continues to hold maximalist positions in negotiations, feeling no significant pressure to compromise.

2. Diplomatic Negotiations and Peace Plan

Claims that a peace plan is “90% complete” are premature; major issues like territorial disputes remain unresolved.
Russia currently prefers war over compromise, as it faces no substantial negative consequences for rejecting proposals.
The negotiation process lacks a balance of positive and negative incentives—there is no sustained pressure on Russia nor continued robust support for Ukraine.
Ukraine’s potential refusal to join NATO, as stated by President Zelensky, signals a pragmatic but risky shift aimed at showing constructiveness and securing stronger, formalized security commitments from the U.S., albeit without full NATO membership.
NATO membership remains a symbol of sovereignty and a tool to pressure Western partners, despite the alliance’s reluctance to admit Ukraine amid risks.

3. Europe’s Role and Military-Industrial Complex

Europe demonstrated a lack of strategic autonomy and subjectivity in 2025, heavily reliant on the U.S. for security and military support.
European military-industrial capacity is limited by fragmentation, underinvestment, and a long-term demilitarization trend since the Cold War’s end.
Although efforts to produce artillery ammunition, missiles, drones, and naval and aviation equipment are underway, Europe’s defense autonomy will likely only materialize by the 2030s.
Europe maneuvers cautiously to support Ukraine without antagonizing the U.S., reflecting its desire for a “soft landing” in a post-American world.

4. Military Developments on the Battlefield

Russian tactics evolved with infiltration methods and increased use of battlefield drones to bypass Ukrainian defenses and disrupt logistics and rear positions.
Ukraine faces severe losses, including nearly half a million casualties and significant territorial losses in 2025.
Ukraine has made progress in long-range strike drone capabilities, creating a more symmetrical threat environment.
The war remains a war of attrition with no decisive breakthroughs; the outcome depends heavily on the resilience of each side’s rear support and economic endurance.
Ukrainian defense struggles with infantry shortages and adapting to drone-saturated battlefields, while Russia’s advances are costly and limited by their inability to consolidate gains.

5. Russian Internal Situation and War Sustainability

Russia’s economy shows signs of strain with slowed growth and increased tax burdens, but economic problems alone are unlikely to force concessions.
Russia maintains societal pressure through a controversial model involving the use of prisoners and economically disadvantaged populations as expendable infantry.
The Kremlin’s leadership remains committed to continuing the war or freezing the conflict if necessary, rather than conceding.

6. Ukrainian Army Reforms and Challenges

Ukraine is still in the early stages of reforming command structures and training systems, with ongoing difficulties in managing large troop formations.
The military continues to rely heavily on grassroots initiative, non-state support, and experienced cadres.
Strategic systemic planning remains a challenge, with more reactive than proactive approaches dominating.

7. Limits of Ukrainian Concessions

Security guarantees remain a critical and contentious issue; current U.S. offers are more obligations than true guarantees.
Territorial concessions risk undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty and state functionality, especially loss of access to the Black Sea.
Maintaining national unity is essential, as internal divisions over concessions could be exploited by Russia to weaken Ukraine’s pro-Western course.
Ukraine aims to freeze the war on current front lines without compromising security capabilities or sovereignty.

8. Future Outlook for 2026

The war is expected to continue as a war of attrition with Russia holding the initiative but unable to achieve decisive breakthroughs.
The battle for the Slavic-Kramatorsk area is anticipated to be a focal point.
Ukraine will need to maintain and possibly expand its reserve forces, balancing economic capacity with defense needs.

Presenters/Contributors

Mykola Biliskov — Senior Analyst, Come Back Alive Foundation
Interviewer/Host (unnamed)

This interview provides a comprehensive analysis of the evolving geopolitical and military dynamics of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, highlighting the complexities of international involvement, battlefield realities, and the challenges facing Ukraine in both defense and diplomacy.