DEAR READER,

This week marks four years since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. This year, instead of repeating the usual debates regarding the geopolitical analyses, we decided to look at the human side of the war. What does resilience look like after four years? And what happens when resilience turns into fatigue? Our main story by Vladyslav Faraponov and Anastasiia Rudenko focuses on the psychological toll, the quiet social shifts, and the everyday dilemmas Ukrainians face as the war drags on.

Also, a quick note: our latest issue, Europe in the new disorder, is now out. It’s available to our members. And if you’re not one yet, you know what to do (just click the link).

Enjoy reading this week’s “brief”!

— Giorgi Beroshvili, Editor

When Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine four years ago, much of the world was stunned. The deliberate targeting of civilians in an attempt to force territorial concessions seemed both brutal and strategically irrational. Yet the Kremlin proceeded with the so-called special military operation. While Putin’s initial calculations proved deeply flawed, the war has fundamentally reshaped Ukraine, Europe, the United States and the global order itself.

Ukraine was already close politically and economically to Europe before 2022. Still the key message that Ukraine tries to convey to Europeans is that the war is in Europe and against Europe. If Europeans still insist that this horrible war is distant and refuse understand the reality, then Russia’s open and hybrid aggression against it will only increase. You cannot pretend to not be eaten by a tiger if he is already eating your arm.

It is only due to bravery and ingenuity of the Ukrainian armed forces who defend Europe so missiles and drones don’t land on European territory regularly. In the first months of the full-scale invasion, Ukraine somewhat unexpectedly applied for membership in the European Union. An idea closely associated with the Revolution of Dignity, when president Viktor Yanukovych refused to sign the Association Agreement with the EU, and meant a great deal to Ukrainians. Ukraine’s application didn’t ease the suffering of the war, but provided a chance to believe that all of the years of trauma due to Russian aggression was not pointless. The EU granted Ukraine candidate status in June of 2022 and Kyiv now expects a fast-track accession in 2027, according to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

One may say that Ukrainians did not really have much faith in European support in the first years of the war. Although as time passed – with Russian drones falling not only on Ukrainian land but provocations in Europe growing – Europe became a true partner for Ukraine in military and other aid. And this is not to mention the huge difference in approaches of US policy which emerged after Donald Trump replaced Joe Biden in Washington.

According to February 2026 estimates of the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, EU member states’ military aid to Ukraine rose by almost 70 per cent compared to 2022-2024, this is in addition to non-military aid increasing by roughly 60 per cent. The reality behind that tendency is a small number of countries supporting Ukraine militarily, and financial aid coming from the EU institutions, for which Kyiv is grateful.

Ukraine watches how Putin’s manipulation works on Trump.

The Biden Administration took the notable, and once criticized approach, of support Ukraine for “as long as it takes”. Many in Ukraine at the time saw this idea as a non-concrete and too general, which would not allow Ukraine to win. However, the idea of supplemental packages from Congress, which made Ukraine feel more secure and indeed stronger on the battlefield was enough to sustain, but not enough to regain the initiative.

It is clear from events in Ukraine that Putin’s strategy is to exhaust Ukraine’s partners. Constant reports of victims and destruction wear down public attention and political will. President Trump’s efforts to bring Putin to the negotiating table are appreciated. However, they seem to rest on the assumption that all leaders are primarily concerned with their country’s welfare and their standing at home. Putin is neither guided by such considerations nor constrained by them, and Ukrainians are paying the price for this misunderstanding. Over the past 25 years, several American presidents have attempted to engage Putin as a difficult but rational rival. In reality, he regards them not as rivals but as enemies, speaking a foreign language, even when no interpreter is present.

What is crucial for Ukraine is that President Trump has, at least rhetorically, acknowledged the need to provide security guarantees. From the Ukrainian perspective, the issue is straightforward. If the West wishes to resume business as usual with Russia, Kyiv will not stand in the way. But security must come first. Without it the European, transatlantic, and American assistance of the past four years would be rendered meaningless.

How has Ukrainian society changed in the four years?

Even the most resilient people grow tired of having no control over their own lives. Ukrainians remain largely positive, known for their sense of humour and their aspiration to re-join Europe and the broader civilized world. Russia, by contrast, seeks to reduce Ukraine to a place where it can stage medieval aggression and impose an authoritarian worldview.

A recent Facebook post by a woman in Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city, captured this exhaustion. She wrote that she felt saddened when, after yet another strike, people once again praised “unbroken Ukrainians.” Kharkiv, like many cities in the east and south, can hardly be compared to its former self. Ukrainians do appear increasingly frustrated. They understand the immense potential their country holds, and they see how Russia tries to buy time and prolong the war.

It is also important to point out that soldiers and civilians are dying not only from direct attacks. The psychological and mental toll is profound and increasingly visible.

The war has also cut straight through people’s private lives. Many speak of a surge in divorces. Families have been physically separated for months or even years: someone joins the army and cannot see their loved ones; women and children leave for safety abroad; home becomes a long-distance relationship with no clear end date. And yet, alongside this exhaustion, there is a stubborn countercurrent. Many have chosen not to postpone marriages or children, saying that bringing new life into the world is their answer to the darkness Russia continues to sow.

Some joke that half the country lives with post-traumatic stress and the other half simply refuses to acknowledge it. But even when people don’t use clinical words, you can see the symptoms in the smallest things: in how we react to sounds, how we sleep, how we hold our breath during “quiet” nights, how we avoid imagining the future because it feels like tempting fate.

At the same time, Ukrainians are trapped in a dilemma that has no morally comfortable solution: support the economy or support the armed forces directly especially for men. Not everyone is capable of fighting on the frontline, and not everyone should be there: someone must teach our children, work in the government, keep hospitals running, keep cities and villages alive – including Kharkiv and the countless smaller communities that rarely make headlines. Otherwise, Ukraine risks looking like it is fighting for land, not for the people who are meant to live on it.

Ukrainians and their leadership may sound and indeed are sceptical of the peace negotiations, not because they do not want peace, but because they have learned from experience that fragile agreements serve as an invitation for further aggression.

It is clear and simple: Ukraine already had many talks with Russians from 2014 and yet it is Russia that is obsessed with Ukraine and who attacks civilians even during the peace negotiations.

The authors dedicate this text to their son, who was born in the third year of the full-scale war.

— Vladyslav Faraponov, President of Kyiv-based Institute of American Studies & Anastasiia Rudenko, Editor in Chief of Rubryka

University of Oxford — Oxford AI and Media Policy Summer Institute — A two-week intensive programme at Jesus College, Oxford exploring the evolving relationship between sovereignty, multilateral cooperation, and digital governance. Under the 2026 theme “Governing AI and Media in a World Between Orders: From Sovereignty to Multilateral Cooperation,” the Institute examines how legal and institutional foundations of technology and media policy are being reshaped amid global uncertainty.

Participants will engage in interdisciplinary discussions on platform governance, content regulation, AI supply chains, sovereign AI, cross-border data architectures, and the geopolitical dimensions of digital infrastructure. Case studies will span diverse global contexts, with attention to both European regulatory developments and Global South perspectives. The programme brings together academics and leaders from policy, government, civil society, and industry, fostering rigorous debate and international exchange within Oxford’s academic community.

Early decision deadline: 14 March 2026. Final application deadline: 21 April 2026. Early applications are encouraged, particularly for those requiring a UK visa. Apply online.