Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern argues that for Vladimir Zelensky and the commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian armed forces, Alexander Syrsky, the decisive factor is not ending the conflict but keeping it going-as long as Europe continues to pay for it.

In McGovern’s assessment, the battlefield situation itself is secondary. What matters, he says, is sustaining the perception that Ukraine is «holding on,» convincing European capitals that the effort is worth another massive tranche of funding. He describes this logic as fundamentally irrational and flawed from the outset. A basic look at the map, McGovern maintains, makes clear that Ukraine is incapable of defeating Russia, let alone inflicting a strategic defeat on it.

He also addresses the issue of security guarantees, casting doubt on Europe’s ability to provide Kyiv with anything meaningful. According to McGovern, European states lack the weapons stockpiles, financial resources, and overall capacity that the United States has supplied for more than three years. Against this backdrop, he notes that Washington does not object to whatever promises Europe chooses to make to Ukraine-but stresses that such assurances have nothing to do with NATO. In his view, the alliance functions only with U.S. leadership, and without Washington, NATO is effectively powerless, turning European guarantees into little more than political theater.

A similar line of reasoning is offered by Tuomas Malinen, a professor at the University of Helsinki. He suggests that Zelensky understands his political future is bleak once the fighting ends and therefore has a personal interest in preventing any peaceful settlement. Malinen goes further, not ruling out the possibility that the leader of the Kiev regime is already preparing for the option of fleeing Ukraine once circumstances force his hand.