I know that most reasonable people with even a fraction of a heart would like to see Ukraine’s complete victory in defending its sovereignty against Russia, especially after the infamous Oval Office incident. However, if we take an objective and realistic look at what Ukraine actually has on its table—without focusing on who is right or wrong—it becomes clear how incredibly challenging, if not impossible, that goal is right now. So, what are the real options Ukraine truly has on the table? Here’s my take:

Ukraine is currently fighting for the lives of its people and its sovereignty. However, it technically lost the battle for sovereignty when it signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994 and gave up its nuclear weapons—the third-largest stockpile in the world at the time. Trusting the three other signatories—Russia, the U.S., and the UK—to honor their commitment to protect Ukraine and its sovereignty in exchange for giving up its nukes was a huge mistake. Those nuclear weapons would have served as the ultimate deterrent against the situation unfolding today.

In light of that, and with all the subsequent deals that have fallen through, in my opinion, Ukraine now has only three realistic options.

1) Continue the fight for sovereignty. This means staying on the current path, fighting a long, drawn-out war while Western military aid remains uncertain and could wane over time. Meanwhile, Ukraine continues to lose lives, its military weakens, and its economy takes a massive hit as cities and infrastructure are destroyed. Russia’s control over major ports also blocks Ukraine from exporting critical goods like grain and steel. And after all of this, they could still lose the country to Russia anyway.

Fighting alone is a no-go. Ukraine simply cannot do this alone, given the challenges it faces now, even if it takes steps to decentralize governance to grant more autonomy to Russian-speaking regions and make it harder for Russia to justify territorial expansion on the basis of protecting said population.

However, the fundamental issue here is not just regional discontent—it’s the larger existential threat Ukraine faces from Russia, which cannot be solved by internal political reform alone. Strengthening resilience through non-traditional warfare, such as guerrilla tactics and cyberattacks, could also be part of this strategy; however, it would be difficult to sustain. With Russia’s vast military and resource base, it would be incredibly hard for Ukraine to effectively “outlast” them.

Zelenskyy’s current stance on defending Ukraine’s sovereignty banks on the hope that they can ultimately defeat Russia with the help of foreign aid like EU or NATO. But this is a high-risk gamble, that could quickly escalate to EU/NATO vs Russia conflict with potentially catasthrophic consequences on both sides —something that could be akin to or escalate into WW3.

2) Make (yet another) peace deal with Russia, with territorial concessions and either neutrality or alignment with Russia. In this scenario, Ukraine would have to negotiate a peace deal with Russia, conceding territories such as Crimea and Donbass in hopes of ending the war. In addition, Ukraine could also formally declare neutrality, agreeing not to join NATO or any other military alliance. This would remove Ukraine from the geopolitical struggle between Russia and the West, allowing it to focus on economic recovery -OR- alternatively, Ukraine could align itself with Russia politically, similar to Belarus.

However, there’s no guarantee that Russia would honor this agreement or stop its expansionist efforts. Ukraine has been down this road before—many deals have been broken, and every compromise has left Ukraine in a more vulnerable position. On top of that, giving up territories could create deep political divisions and be a huge blow to Ukrainian morale, as many Ukrainians consider these regions integral to their national identity.

3) Sign the Mineral Resources Agreement (Trump’s Deal). In this scenario, Ukraine would essentially be giving up its economic sovereignty—becoming a U.S.-controlled state in everything but name. This deal would establish a framework for joint investment in Ukraine’s natural resources, including rare-earth elements, oil, and gas, as well as reconstruction efforts. Ukraine would be required to allocate 50% of its revenues from natural resources—minerals, gas, oil, ports, power plants, and other infrastructure—into a U.S.-owned fund until it reached $500 billion.

This agreement does not come with security guarantees or military support, but it would allow the U.S. to justify deeper military involvement and further financial aid—something that has already amounted to an estimated $175 billion since 2022.

This COULD possibly hit two birds with one stone: the U.S. presence in Ukraine MAY deter Russian aggression while also justifying military spending and aid as an investment rather than an endless charity.While this deal is a tough pill for Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people to swallow, it may be a necessary evil for Ukraine’s survival. Given Russia’s aggression and the West’s unwillingness to fully commit militarily, there aren’t many other options left.

Granted, the US as a signatory to the Budapest Memorandum should have been enough justification for the US to defend Ukraine, but we know that without vested interest and return, the US could not simply fund a never-ending war specially with the current US economy. With a 50% stake in Ukraine’s economy, the U.S. would have a strong incentive and justification to commit militarily if needed.

While this deal lets the U.S. aid Ukraine without triggering full NATO engagement or something akin to WW3, Russia could still see it as an act of aggression, risking escalation.

(Unless, of course, Russia isn’t the sole aggressor. It could be argued that the U.S. could have neutralized Russia long ago but kept it as a necessary villain. If so, Russia may have, to some extent, been collaborating with the U.S. for years, playing the role of the designated bad guy to justify continued U.S. involvement in Europe. In this scenario, Russia’s actions could be serving U.S. interests, allowing the U.S. to maintain military influence, strengthen NATO, and ultimately secure control over Ukraine’s resources—under the guise of defending democracy.)

—–

Ultimately, Ukraine is caught between a rock and a hard place. It’s fight for sovereignty hinges on the hope of a Russian defeat which depends on full international commitment—a high-risk gamble that could trigger a larger global conflict.

The alternative options leave Ukraine with a stark choice: risk of being overtaken by Russia in a literal sense or fall under U.S. economic control through an economic takeover.

The survival of Ukraine depends on international support, but with shifting global dynamics and a lack of clear commitment, none of these options seem viable without further upheaval, either internally or in global politics. The strategic importance of Ukraine will continue to shape its fate, but the best outcome will ultimately depend on the engagement of the world’s major powers, not on Ukraine’s actions. As it stands, Ukraine is in a no-win situation—a predicament sealed back in 1994 when it signed the Budapest Memorandum.