Russia is seeing significant public sentiment against the continuation of military mobilization as the nation grapples with the strains of its conflict with Ukraine. Sociologist Alexander Shulga, the head of the Institute for Conflict Studies and Analysis of Russia (IKAR), has stated, "Russian society is ready for the end of the war and is willing to accept any variant presented as the conclusion of the conflict, as victory." He remarked during a recent appearance on Eспресо, emphasizing the growing fatigue within the populace amid the pressing economic consequences of prolonged warfare.
Shulga's observations are indicative of broader trends he anticipates to present through upcoming research involving Russian public opinion. He also expressed confidence, stating, "The internal stability of the Kremlin is not threatened," thereby underlining how Russians, should the Kremlin announce the end of hostilities, would likely respond positively: "They will say, 'Thank God,' cross themselves, and go about their lives peacefully." This reflects not only the fatigue but also the pragmatic acceptance of change.
Meanwhile, there are calls from the United States advocating for peace talks between Ukraine and Russia. Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine's president, has been vocal about what needs to happen for peace to be achieved, clearly defining the terms for fair negotiations.
Across the ocean, former U.S. representative for Ukraine, Kurt Volker, recently wrote about the U.S.-Ukraine agreement concerning mineral resources published on Kyiv Post, arguing against the notion of it being merely a ploy by Donald Trump to exploit Ukraine's vulnerable position. He stressed, "The reality is far more complex, and the agreement can provide substantial benefits to Ukraine." Volker elaborated on the convergence of political, moral, and security interests between the two nations, underscoring the necessity of strengthening ties through economic benefits.
He noted the shift in U.S. politics following the return of Donald Trump to the White House and the Republican majority reasserting itself across both chambers of Congress. This scenario, according to Volker, makes it politically untenable for the U.S. to continue financing direct military support for Ukraine funded by taxpayer dollars. Instead, he proposed, seeking funding from future Ukrainian revenue during peacetime offers political sustainability and presents the narrative of Ukraine paying for its military needs, rather than relying solely on American goodwill.
Trump is positioning himself to suggest reclaimed military aid from U.S. contributions is appropriate for his voter base. Volker believes this could transform the arrangement from what could be seen as mere charity to depict Ukraine as paying for support beneficial for both parties: "This agreement could cement U.S. interest in resolving the conflict, something advantageous for Ukraine."">
Continuing this line of thought, Volker envisions future agreements providing grounds for Trump to insist on Vladimir Putin halting assaults on Ukrainian infrastructure, reinforcing the strategic partnership between the U.S. and Ukraine.
Despite acknowledging earlier faults with proposed agreements, Volker remains hopeful: "The new projects under discussion promise significant improvement.