Why this matters now
The Financial Times published its traditional annual forecasts, among which one of the first concerns Ukraine. The paper concludes that the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from the Donbas is not a realistic scenario for Kyiv, unless there is a complete collapse of its defence. This matters to the reader not as an abstract thesis but as a signal that questions of territorial integrity and military capability remain key factors in foreign policy and aid.
What FT said
"Withdrawal from territories to create a demilitarized zone that would be controlled by neither side would be unviable and unacceptable to either Moscow or Kyiv. Only an unlikely collapse of the defence would force Ukraine to capitulate"
— Financial Times
Why FT draws that conclusion
The conclusion is based on several realities highlighted by military experts: control over territory is not just cartography, but also strategic footholds, logistics, and political legitimacy. The idea of a demilitarized zone without effective control creates a vacuum that either side would exploit to its advantage. Moreover, Ukraine's domestic politics make any large-scale withdrawal politically unacceptable.
What this means for partners and for Ukraine
First, it is an argument in favor of maintaining and increasing military aid: if a collapse of the defence is the only route to capitulation, partners' aim should be to prevent that. Second, it is a signal to diplomacy: negotiations are possible, but they must be grounded in the realities of the front and the strength of the argument, not in a desire for a quick deal. For citizens, this means the state's strategic bet is on combat capability and international support.
Other FT forecasts worth knowing
Outside Ukraine, the FT expects the artificial intelligence bubble could "burst", but large companies would survive a market drop of around 10–15%. The paper also forecasts a shift in the balance of power in the US after the midterm elections, no early presidential elections in France, and a range of economic and political scenarios around the world — from the yuan's exchange rate to the future of quantum computing.
Conclusion: what to do next
The FT reinforces a simple idea: security is a prerequisite for any negotiations. Declarations of support are useful, but the key question now is whether partners will turn those declarations into concrete deliveries, funding, and training that will preserve Ukraine's capability. If the answer is yes, the scenario the FT describes as unlikely will remain so. If not, a different set of risks will have to be considered.
Question for partners and citizens: are Western capitals ready to invest in what will actually strengthen Ukraine's defence, and not just in declarative support?
