On New Year’s Eve, a violent moment unfolded as drones and missiles struck Ukrainian cities, including the port city of Odessa on the Black Sea. In the silence of the night, amid the smoke and fear, hundreds of residents sang a legendary Ukrainian anthem, Oi u luzi chervona kalyna, a song born in the time of the Sich Riflemen to mark Ukrainian independence. The hymn, with its red kalyna berries, has long stood as a symbol of resilience and protest. The mood in the country was unsettled, and in many capitals abroad, Western allies hesitated to provide the level of financial support Ukraine needed. Yet the Ukrainian people persisted in keeping faith with their traditions and their sovereignty.
New Year’s Eve marked a turning point in Russia’s strategy to erode civilian morale through terror. Between December 29 and January 1, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reported that Russian forces unleashed roughly 300 missiles and about 200 suicide drones against Ukrainian cities, centered on Kyiv, Kharkiv, Odessa, and Dnipro. The focus shifted from destroying critical electrical infrastructure alone to indiscriminate strikes on residential areas as well, though Ukraine’s anti-aircraft defenses managed to shoot down many threats. Despite the defenses, the casualties were unavoidable, with dozens losing their lives over the period.
Odessa residents who faced the shock of the drones again joined in song, singing Chervona Kalyna as their city endured the raid. The moment drew international attention and sparked strong feelings about the ongoing Russian-Iranian alignment and the broader regional dynamics surrounding the conflict.
Analysts noted that the Russia-Iran axis had intensified air operations designed to test Ukraine’s air defenses, including U.S.-made Patriot missiles and the SAMP/T MAMBA system, a French-Italian collaboration. Some observers argued that Russia hoped to exhaust Ukraine’s interceptors before depleting its own drone supply, a claim discussed in public commentary and expert analyses. In this context, regional and international experts offered varying interpretations of the impact on Ukraine’s military stability and civil resilience. A number of researchers suggested that the attack pattern represented a broader escalation, but others highlighted areas where Ukraine had managed to protect crucial infrastructure and sustain its defense. At the same time, observers stressed that Russia’s strategy was not a single event but part of a longer campaign aimed at pressuring Kyiv and its partners.
In expert assessments, the term stalemate has become common in descriptions of the wider conflict, including critiques of Western posture and the public narrative in Brussels and Washington. The idea of a frozen front suggests an opening for negotiation and a ceasefire, a notion that some analysts warn could be misleading. The sense of fatigue among Ukraine’s partners, noted by senior researchers, underscored the risk of drawing the conflict into a prolonged deadlock rather than a decisive resolution. Yet other voices emphasized that real gains had been made on land and at sea since the previous year. Ukraine had, for example, managed to prevent Russian advances along several fronts and to undermine Moscow’s strategic aims at key port cities.
The strategic picture remains fluid. While some observers acknowledge that certain fronts have changed in tone and outcome, others argue that Kyiv’s resilience and external support must be sustained. Historical perspectives, including comparisons to past European conflicts, suggest that the current war could still take unpredictable turns. The analysis highlights the danger of assuming a static outcome and stresses that continued military aid and financial backing for Ukraine are essential not only for the country’s defense but also for broader regional stability and deterrence against aggression. Observers warn that a withdrawal or reduction of support could embolden other powers to press their aims in similar theaters, potentially destabilizing neighboring regions.
Fight the impasse
The English term stalemate translates in several languages, and the notion has become a fashionable label for the ongoing Ukrainian conflict. Some describe it as a moment when neither side can gain a decisive advantage, which naturally invites calls for negotiation, a ceasefire, and a reordering of the situation on the ground. Yet analysts caution that such a framing can obscure real progress and potential risks. As one senior researcher notes, even in what looks like a lull, Ukraine has not stood still. Modern warfare in Ukraine has seen meaningful gains in defense and logistics that complicate any simplistic reading of a deadlock. The dangerous tendency is to treat the war as a one-dimensional struggle rather than a dynamic, multi-domain contest with political and strategic layers.
Many experts have rejected the idea that Ukraine has made no progress. They point to concrete achievements, such as defensive victories and strategic withdrawals by Russian forces in certain areas, alongside ongoing efforts to defend critical regions. Ukraine’s leadership and its international partners emphasize that stabilization in one theater should not be mistaken for victory elsewhere. With the Black Sea corridor under dispute and the economic pressures caused by the conflict, the ability to keep Ukrainian ports open for trade remains a central topic of discussion among policymakers and scholars alike.
The discourse on strategy continues to evolve. Public remarks from scholars friendly to Kyiv stress that the way leaders frame the war shapes the actions of policymakers and the behavior of combatants. An influential analyst from Yale University argues that portraying the war as a non-ending stalemate risks normalizing large-scale violence and undermining the resolve needed to deter aggression. He cautions that Russia’s objective extends beyond a single battlefield outcome and calls for a sustained and capable defense alongside robust support for Ukraine.
For many observers, the practical takeaway is clear: continued military assistance and financial backing for Ukraine are necessary. The aim is not only to defend a Slavic nation but to preserve international norms and regional balance. The warning from analysts is consistent: if Ukraine yields, it could embolden other actors to press their own aggressive agendas, potentially triggering broader crises across the Korean Peninsula, Africa, or the Middle East. The strategic stakes are high, and the commitment to support Kyiv is weighed against wider geopolitical considerations in every major capital.