As the Ukrainian people endure an unrelenting onslaught, the discourse surrounding “victory” in this relentless war necessitates a significant recalibration.
Our past conversations have fixated on the tangible—regaining territories, achieving strategic wins on battlefields, and the moral justification that accompanies these calculations.
Yet, the ongoing violence enveloping everyday lives signals a pressing need for a broader, deeper understanding of what victory truly means; it is not merely a requirement—it is vital.
While many yearn for a return to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders, such an outcome is likely to be clouded by profound loss and disillusionment. Even an idealised form of victory—the full restoration of Ukraine’s internationally recognised borders—would be marred by an overwhelming sadness.
This melancholy arises from the staggering human cost: lost lives, fractured families, and the psychological scars carried by a traumatised population.
Today, as the war reshapes the Ukrainian landscape, we must grapple with the question: Is reclaiming territory sufficient for achieving true victory?
The reality is that even if borders are restored, the absence of justice—particularly the prosecution of Vladimir Putin in The Hague—will overshadow any semblance of triumph.
The simplistic equation of regaining territory with national recovery risks leading Ukraine to prioritise land over the people.
NATO alone cannot secure Ukraine’s future
The Kremlin’s propaganda machine stands poised to paint any scenario as a win for Russia—especially in light of Ukraine's painful territorial losses. Thus, Ukraine’s definition of victory warrants scrutiny that goes beyond mere metrics of territory reclaimed to encompass the very fabric of its society and the spirit of its people.
Amidst this turmoil, the promise of NATO membership—once a beacon of security—has faded into an increasingly distant hope. Despite their heroic resistance, Ukrainians have yet to convince their Western allies of their readiness for NATO integration.
The daunting realities of military reform and political stability loom large, even as Ukrainian soldiers fight valiantly not only for their homeland but for the principles the Alliance claims to protect. Yet, NATO alone cannot secure Ukraine’s future.
Over half of Ukrainians now advocate for negotiations to conclude the war as swiftly as possible
The prospect of membership as the long-term strategy offers scant comfort to those displaced or grieving profound losses. Short-term accession is not possible, and the Kremlin insists on rejecting any.
For many Ukrainians, the word “victory” fractures into a kaleidoscope of meanings. Some yearn for the borders of 1991, while others are resigned to the status quo of 2022.
Survival itself—maintaining the integrity of Kyiv, preserving independence—feels like a victory for many. Yet Gallup’s latest polling reveals a disconcerting reality: over half of Ukrainians now advocate for negotiations to conclude the war as swiftly as possible.
This sentiment reflects a broader war-weariness, one not alleviated by social media bravado or public declarations of resilience.
Hope is fading
The toll of this conflict is staggering. Nearly ten million people have fled their homes, with thousands more departing monthly, compelled by fatigue, blackouts, economic despair, and the uncertainty that hangs over daily life.
As we approach the beginning of the fourth year, hope is fading. Economic troubles force people to look for work abroad, educational problems push for a stable and high-quality European school, there is a shortage of healthcare professionals in the country, and those who have real estate often agree to sell it at a huge discount to avoid losing their homes to a Russian missile or drone fragment.
Beneath the narrative of heroism lies an undercurrent of attrition—a story marked by disillusionment, exhaustion, and national despair
Beneath the narrative of heroism lies an undercurrent of attrition—a story marked by disillusionment, exhaustion, and national despair that drives many to seek refuge beyond Ukraine’s borders.
In this light, the rhetoric surrounding territorial integrity seems increasingly insufficient and perhaps even cruel.
The notion of “territorial justice,” frequently invoked by diplomats and strategists, carries little weight for those living under constant bombardment or for mothers who lost their children due to the Russian aggression or those striving to protect their sons from conscription. For these individuals, victory is not measured in reclaimed land but in lives preserved.
What victory entails?
The opinions of top decision-makers are increasingly moving away from territorial returns as the main victory. Recently, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine indicated a slight shift towards compromise in the ongoing war.
He proposed that the hot phase of the war might conclude if Ukrainian territory currently under government control could be secured "under the NATO umbrella," enabling him to negotiate the return of the remaining lands "in a diplomatic way."
Volodymyr Zelensky proposed that the hot phase of the war might conclude if Ukrainian territory currently under government control could be secured "under the NATO umbrella"
Although, this suggestion has already been diplomatically rebuffed by current NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, this exchange highlights the prevailing dynamics surrounding opinions on a potential ceasefire agreement.
Former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stepped in with an optimistic vision that "if the ceasefire line permits Russia to maintain control over all occupied territories, it does not imply that Ukraine must relinquish those territories permanently."
This stance does not imply that Ukraine should abandon its aspirations for territorial reclamation. The loss of land to Russian aggression represents an existential injury, and its restoration remains essential to national identity.
However, as Ukraine contemplates its future, it must engage with more challenging questions. What does victory signify if it leaves the nation hollowed out by grief and exile? Can a country truly rebuild its borders without first mending its people?
Perhaps the answer lies not in a triumph on the battlefield but in a broader reckoning of what victory entails. True victory for Ukraine will necessitate more than the recovery of cities or formal agreements; it will demand justice—for all whose lives have been uprooted and destroyed.
It requires healing of a psychological, physical, and collective nature and a commitment to reconstructing the nation not just for today but for future generations.
Ultimately, to win, Ukraine must adopt a vision of victory that champions human dignity over territorial claims, justice over mere retribution, and healing over enduring hatred. In doing so, Ukraine will get the opportunity to reclaim not only its land but also to redefine the essence of its wholeness and national pride.
Iuliia Mendel is a Ukrainian journalist and political advisor. She worked for several Ukrainian television channels, served as a communications consultant for the World Bank, and contributed to The New York Times. Her articles have been published by Politico Europe, Atlantic Council, Vice, Spiegel Online, and Forbes. She served as press secretary and spokesperson for Volodymyr Zelenskyy, President of Ukraine (2019-2021). In 2022, Mendel published the book "The Fight of Our Lives: My Time with Zelenskyy, Ukraine’s Battle for Democracy, and What It Means for the World.“
