When people imagine the end of the war in Ukraine, they usually imagine a finish line.

One side wins. One side loses. A treaty is signed. The shooting stops. And then life, somehow, begins to move back toward normal.

But wars like this do not end that cleanly.

The more likely ending is messier: the front freezes, the shooting slows, diplomats start choosing careful words — and the war keeps living inside both societies.

It stays in everyday life: in higher prices, broken friendships, veterans who don’t know where to put themselves, and whole careers that now depend on the war having mattered. It stays in families split between those who left, those who stayed, those who profited, and those who buried the dead. 

And here is the part many Russians do not want to hear: Peace may stop the fighting, but it will not rescue Russia.

For many ordinary Russians, any kind of peace may feel like relief at first. Of course it will. But the problems that made their lives smaller, harsher, and more fearful will not disappear when the guns go quiet. The war has already changed the economy, the state, the social hierarchy, and the kind of future people can imagine.

So the real question is not simply: when will the war end?

The real question is: what happens to Russia after the war no longer gives the system an excuse?

Today, I want to show you the reckoning that may come after the shooting slows — for Russia, for Ukraine, and for the people who will have to live inside the world this war leaves behind.

Here’s our roadmap:

• What Peace Means — why the most likely ending is a freeze along the front, not a clean peace treaty
• Two Very Different Victories — why the same ceasefire may feel like survival in Ukraine and humiliation in Russia
• The New Normal — what wartime daily life changed in both countries, and what will not simply disappear
• The People War Rewarded — who gained money, status, and purpose from war, and what happens to them after
• Veterans and Power — why ex-soldiers may become a political force in Ukraine and a destabilizing one in Russia
• The Reckoning After Peace — what demobilization and economic transition may do to both countries

What Peace Means

People in Russia and Ukraine are not waiting for the same thing.

In Ukraine, people want the shooting to stop, but they do not trust easy formulas. Kyiv International Institute of Sociology polling from late 2025 and early 2026 shows a pattern that Western audiences often miss. A large majority of Ukrainians can accept a freeze along the current frontline if it comes with real security guarantees and does not require moral surrender. At the same time, a majority still rejects the idea of simply handing over the whole Donbas or withdrawing troops from positions that would leave the country exposed.

And that makes perfect sense.

Russia is different.

There, the state also understands that people are tired. In December, the state pollster VTsIOM and the independent Levada Center arrived at the same result: Russians increasingly expect or want the war to end in 2026, and support for negotiations has risen. But the Russian version of “peace” is emotionally muddled. Many people want an end to the war and at the same time, want to believe they did not lose it. They want relief without confession.

That is why a freeze is such an unstable outcome for Russia. It gives the Kremlin something it can try to package as success. But it also gives ordinary people something they can feel in their bones as failure.

Two Very Different Victories

Russia and Ukraine will come out of the same ending with two very different verdicts.

For Ukraine, this war has already changed the national story.

Before 2022, a lot of Westerners still talked about Ukraine through Russia. Corrupt like Russia. Post-Soviet like Russia. Trapped in Russia’s orbit. The “little brother.” The country that could be pushed, leaned on, bought, frightened, or partitioned if necessary. That old mental map is dead.

Even if the war ends without the immediate return of every occupied territory, Ukraine will still be able to say something enormous: we were attacked by a much larger state, and it failed to destroy us or force us back into obedience.

That is their new story.

It is the classic David-and-Goliath effect, but with a modern twist. This David did not kill Goliath in one clean strike. He made him spend years swinging at a target he could not dominate. He stayed standing. He forced the giant to admit that the giant’s strength had limits. And that is already a form of victory.

Ukraine will also read this outcome through another lens: separation from Russia. Millions of Ukrainians who might once have spoken casually of “brotherly peoples” or treated the Soviet inheritance as a shared background no longer do. The war has done what decades of lectures could not. It has made the break emotional.

In Russia, the same ceasefire will do the opposite: expose the gap between imperial fantasy and lived reality.

The Kremlin sold this war as a demonstration of strength. A short, righteous war that would force the world to treat Russia as a giant again. Instead, Russia ends it poorer, angrier, more isolated, more dependent on China, more hated by its neighbors, and less able to pretend it is building anything attractive. Even inside the country, daily life has narrowed. Credit is expensive. Independent speech is dangerous. Travel is harder. Prices bite. Schools are more ideological. People feel watched. Families are split by politics, exile, death, and shame.

This is where the humiliation comes from: the contrast.

Russia had the larger army, the larger population, the larger Soviet stockpile, the oil money, the nukes, the giant propaganda machine. And still it could not force Ukraine back into the role of junior partner.

That is a historic defeat, even if the Kremlin bans the word.

And there is another problem. Ukrainians will be able to invest the ceasefire with meaning: survival, dignity, statehood, a future in Europe, however difficult. Russia will struggle to do the same. Its official story will be too thin, too fake, too obviously smaller than the sacrifice it demanded.

The state will say: we held the line, we defended national interests, we stood up to NATO.

Ordinary people will answer, quietly at first: then why is everything worse?

Before we move on, I’d like to share a short book trailer for my upcoming novel, which explores the anatomy of modern Russian society and the causes and consequences of the war in Ukraine.

Learn more about The Snow Queen’s Spring

The New Normal

Russia and Ukraine have already spent years living inside a different kind of normal. And much of that normal will survive a ceasefire.

In Russia, the war economy gave the country a strange artificial pulse for a while. Wages rose in some sectors. Defense factories pulled in workers. Official television could point to production figures and call it strength.

But beneath that surface, ordinary life kept shrinking. Russia’s economy contracted by 1.8% in the first two months of 2026, with high interest rates, labor shortages, and falling industrial output pressing at the same time.

And while the Kremlin still speaks in the language of empire, ordinary Russians are living inside that contraction.

Even people who still support Putin increasingly complain that officials lie, suppress bad news, and hide reality from the top. That is why Viktoria Bonya’s video exploded.

Bonya is not an opposition politician. She is a Russian television personality and influencer who became famous years ago through reality TV, celebrity culture, and beauty content.

And that is exactly why her rant mattered.

When someone like Bonya suddenly speaks up, it cuts through the usual categories. The Kremlin can easily dismiss liberals, exiles, and activists as enemies. But when a celebrity from the soft, apolitical world of luxury and self-promotion says the system is rotting, millions of ordinary Russians recognize the mood.

Her video drew more than 20 million views and forced the Kremlin to respond publicly. Not because she said something especially profound, but because she said out loud what many people were already feeling.

There is also the physical side of this new normal.

Russia is no longer a country where the war stays comfortably far away. Ukrainian drone attacks now reach refineries, pumping stations, and industrial nodes inside Russia with regularity. Most recently, drone strikes caused stoppages at the Tuapse and Novokuibyshevsk refineries, with a huge fire in Tuapse lighting up the night sky and sending thick smoke over the area. That means disrupted output, damaged infrastructure, and a spreading sense that even the rear is no longer fully the rear.

So what remains after the war?

The smaller horizon remains.

The habit of self-censorship remains.

The school system will not suddenly stop being ideological. The police will not become gentler. The passport will not open more doors. And the social wounds will remain too: broken friendships, split families, the quiet hatred between those who left and those who stayed, those who profited and those who buried the dead.

Ukraine’s new normal is different.

It is harsher in some ways. But it points in another direction.

Ukraine’s daily life has also been bent out of shape by war: blackouts, displacement, grief, missing people, disability, labor shortages, exhausted women carrying extra weight at home and at work, and a society that lives with constant background danger. More than 10 million Ukrainians remain displaced. Homes, schools, factories, power stations, roads, and entire neighborhoods have been damaged or destroyed.

But here is the key difference.

In Ukraine, hardship still points outward, toward rebuilding.

In Russia, hardship points inward, toward closure.

The People War Rewarded

Every war creates its own winners.

Not winners in the heroic sense – in the practical sense. People whose incomes rose. Whose lives, for the first time in years, started moving upward because the war machine needed them.

And that may become one of the most difficult problems after the war stops.

In Russia, the most obvious winners were contract soldiers and their families.

Not all of them, of course. Many came back dead, maimed, or ruined. But in poor regions, the state turned military service into one of the few remaining social elevators. In 2024, Putin doubled federal signing bonuses and expected regions to match them. Moscow’s own package pushed first-year pay for contract soldiers to around 5.2 million rubles. That was more than five times the average yearly nominal wage. In other regions, the bonuses also surged. These payouts pulled workers away from civilian jobs and drove inflation.

Another group of Russian winners sat in and around defense industry.

Factories tied to arms, drones, electronics, explosives, and repair drew labor and money. When peace comes, these sectors do not simply “go back” to civilian normal. They face a cliff.

Then there are the smaller but socially noisy winners.

Z-bloggers, patriotic activists, “volunteer” fundraisers, and local fixers. Men and women who learned to speak the language of war and suddenly found themselves important. Before 2022, many of them were nobodies. The war handed them audience, influence, and a place near power. Peace threatens that too.

This is why postwar Russia will not simply be “tired of war.”

A lot of people will miss what war gave them: money, status, purpose, a role, and excuse.

And once people lose these things, they often become angrier and more resentful.

Ukraine also has people whose lives the war unexpectedly advanced.

The war accelerated whole sectors and social roles that might otherwise have remained marginal for years. Drone engineers, rehab specialists, logistics coordinators, medics, cybersecurity workers. The Ukraine-U.S. reconstruction fund approved its first investment this spring in a Lviv-based communications and navigation producer. That is a small sign, but a revealing one: war has pushed parts of Ukraine toward industries and skills that can still matter after war.

Even the military side shows the difference.

Ukraine’s youth recruitment drive targeting people aged 18-24 offers not just pay, but bonuses and interest-free housing loans. The point is not merely to fill trenches but to present service as something that can still connect to a future.

And that is the dividing line between the two countries.

In Russia, many war winners depend on the continuation of coercion, spending, and emergency.

In Ukraine, many war winners can be converted into builders.

Not all of them. Some will break. Some will become bitter. Some will carry the war into politics in ugly ways. But the broad direction is different. Ukraine already has a reconstruction economy forming around defense technology, logistics, infrastructure, and integration with Western funding and standards.

Veterans and Power

What a country does with its veterans tells you what kind of country it is.

After a long war, veterans are not just people with trauma. They carry networks, habits, status, grievances, and a moral claim on the future. The question is: does the state give them a place inside normal politics and economic life, or does it fear them and try to shut them up? That choice changes everything.

In Ukraine, veterans are much more likely to become a political resource than a threat.

Not because trauma disappears. It will not. The scale is enormous. A government minister said in March that Ukraine expects around 1.2 million veterans, and President Zelensky put the broader count of people touched directly by military service, veterans, and family members at about 6 million. That is a giant share of society.

But here is the crucial difference.

Ukrainian veterans will return to a country that can tell a coherent story about what they did. They defended their homeland. They stopped a larger army. They kept Ukraine alive. Even if the war ends in a frozen line and not full restoration, that story remains intact. Their sacrifice can be folded into national legitimacy.

And there is already a struggle to build institutions around that fact.

Ukraine is planning job support, vocational retraining, grants, business opportunities, and adaptive sports programs, while pushing employers to think seriously about reintegration. These measures are incomplete, underfunded, and messy. But they exist because the state knows the veterans are not disposable. This gives Ukraine a chance Russia does not have.

A veteran in Ukraine can become many things after war: a local politician, a party organizer, a business owner, a trainer, a deminer, a reconstruction manager, a border-security specialist, a civic activist. There will be anger, yes. There will be ugly politics too. But there is room for former soldiers to become a visible and legitimate part of civilian life.

Russia is different.

There, the state does not really want veterans as citizens. It wants them as decorations while they are useful, and as a quiet problem afterward.

This is dangerous.

Because Russia has already built a huge class of men who were paid more than they had ever earned before, told they were heroes, trained in violence, and thrown into a war sold through lies. Labor shortages were spreading as defense industries poached workers, while military pay remained far above civilian regional wages. When those men come back into a stagnating economy, the gap will hit hard.

And what exactly is Russia going to offer them?

Cheap mortgages? The banking system is already strained by high rates.

Mass retraining? The education system is degraded, ideological, and badly managed.

Political participation? The Kremlin does not tolerate independent voices with their own prestige and networks.

A Russian version of the G.I. Bill is almost impossible because the institutions that make such a program work do not exist. There is no trust, no rule of law, no serious protection for small business, and no political culture that sees veterans as citizens with agency.

So the state will do what it usually does.

It will try to police the problem.

Count and track the veterans. Use them for patriotic theater in schools. Hand out selective privileges. Punish the troublesome ones. And above all, deny them an independent political voice.

That containment rather than reintegration. And containment can fail.

Armed, organized, disillusioned men are dangerous when they believe they were promised honor and got nothing. When they believe the country used them and now wants them silent. When they still have old commanders, chats, networks, habits of obedience to force rather than law, and a deep contempt for civilian life.

The Reckoning After Peace

A lot of people think peace automatically helps the economy.

That is not always true.

After a big war, peace can bring its own recession as military orders vanish and state spending drops. Both Russia and Ukraine will face this shock. But they will face it from opposite directions.

Ukraine will face it as a battered country with outside support, market access, and a strong reason for others to invest in its recovery. Russia will face it as a sanctioned country with weak institutions, shrinking room to maneuver, and no serious outside market waiting to rescue its postwar industry.

Start with Ukraine.

The scale of damage is brutal. The World Bank, the European Commission, the UN, and the Ukrainian government all estimate reconstruction and recovery needs at about $588 billion over the next decade. That is more than three times Ukraine’s expected 2025 output.

But look at the other side of the equation.

The EU just approved another giant financial package, a €90 billion loan meant to keep Ukraine afloat while wider support continues. That doesn’t mean Ukraine will rebuild smoothly. It means the country has something Russia does not: a political and financial ecosystem outside itself that is interested in its survival and recovery.

Ukraine also has a path, however painful, toward deeper integration with the European economy. That means standards, investment discipline, logistics, reform pressure, and access to demand far beyond its own borders. Even today, its economy includes sectors that can scale after war rather than shrink: agriculture, parts of IT, logistics, reconstruction, energy repair, defense technology, and eventually demining and infrastructure.

Russia has a different problem. It built a war economy without building a postwar destination.

High interest rates are choking civilian activity even before any real demobilization begins. Inflation remains a problem. Industrial slowdown is visible. Labor shortages remain widespread. This is an overheated system already losing balance.

So when military demand falls, Russia risks a classic postwar trap.

Less money in defense plants meaning less demand for suppliers. Returning soldiers competing for jobs that do not pay like the front paid. A civilian economy too weak and too expensive to absorb them. A state budget already strained.

So here is the final irony.

The Kremlin started this war in part to prove that Russians and Ukrainians could not really live apart.

What it has actually done is make the separation deeper than ever.

Ukraine will emerge from this war wounded, exhausted, and grieving. But it will also carry something else: a stronger civic identity, sustained international support, and a future—however imperfect—anchored in rebuilding and closer ties with Europe.

Russia, by contrast, risks coming out poorer, harsher, more suspicious, and more deeply entrenched in the habits the war has reinforced. The fighting may stop at the front, but within society the logic of war can continue to spread—coercion, resentment, dependency, propaganda, and a growing fear of truth.

History offers a sobering parallel. After World War I, Germany struggled to preserve a sense of dignity and meaning, and many turned toward the promise of a strong leader and an ideology built on unity and revenge.

Which brings me to a question: what, in your view, could be done to reintegrate Russia into the global community in a way that helps prevent that cycle from repeating?

Powered by