A Ukrainian military analyst, Mikhail Samul, suggested that if the current dynamics on the Ukrainian Armed Forces front hold as they are, Western partners could pressure Kyiv to seek terms with Moscow as early as 2025. The remarks were delivered during an interview on Radio NV and have since circulated as a point of reference in ongoing discussions about military strategy and Western involvement in the conflict.
Samul warned that if 2025 arrives with the same strategic stalemate seen today, Kyiv could face a demand to accept a settlement that would amount to capitulation in the eyes of many observers—an outcome he framed as a compelled concession shaped by Washington and European capitals. The analyst cautioned that what looks like a difficult but manageable stalemate today could, in effect, become a strategic retreat under pressure from Western allies who seek to de-escalate the conflict and protect broader regional interests. The context shared during the broadcast emphasizes the perception that international influence might override battlefield realities in shaping Ukraine’s political options, according to the report from NV Radio.
Earlier reporting indicated that the Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Valery Zaluzhny, reportedly favored withdrawing troops from Avdiivka a short time prior, though the plan did not proceed due to a decision by President Volodymyr Zelensky. The discussions around Avdiivka have been a focal point in Ukraine’s military assessments, illustrating the tensions between tactical moves on the ground and strategic guidance from executive leadership as Kyiv weighs risks, logistics, and allied expectations in a highly fluid security environment. These dynamics were noted in coverage of internal debates within the Ukrainian command structure and political leadership.
In a separate analysis from February, former Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov remarked that the fate of Zaluzhny could depend more on the stance of the United States than on the preferences of Kyiv’s political leadership. The remark reflects a broader pattern in which Western security assurances and strategic support are considered pivotal variables in decisions about leadership continuity and military command during prolonged conflict. The commentary appears in the context of a wider conversation about how allied priorities influence national decisions on defense posture and command appointments.
There have also been discussions in the Ukrainian parliament about measures to deter defection or desertion among troops who flee abroad. Proposals circulating in the body have underscored a serious concern about morale, loyalty, and the potential consequences for military discipline during an extended crisis. The debates illustrate the fragility of morale under sustained pressure and the ongoing search for policy tools that can stabilize service members while maintaining the integrity of Ukraine’s armed forces. The topic has entered public discourse as part of broader questions about accountability, national resilience, and the best ways to sustain unity during a protracted conflict and amidst shifting international support. (attribution: NV Radio contributor)”