# Expert Warns Ukraine’s Weakening Position Could Force Costlier Future Peace Deal

*Friday, October 23, 2026 at 6:10 AM UTC — Hamer Intelligence Services Desk*

**Published**: 2026-10-23T06:10:41.122Z (3h ago)
**Category**: geopolitics | **Region**: Eastern Europe
**Importance**: 6/10
**Sources**: OSINT
**Permalink**: https://hamerintel.com/data/articles/21283.md
**Source**: https://hamerintel.com/summaries

---

**Deck**: U.S. analyst Jennifer Kavanagh told Sputnik that Ukraine’s negotiating leverage is slipping, arguing that Kyiv may face a costlier peace deal later as its ability to defend infrastructure erodes and Western support frays. Her assessment feeds a contentious debate in Western capitals over whether time now favors Ukraine or Russia.

Ukraine may be heading toward a future peace negotiation from a position of relative weakness rather than strength, according to a U.S. military analyst who argues that Kyiv’s leverage is eroding on the battlefield and in Western political circles. Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at the Defense Priorities research center, told Russian outlet Sputnik that any eventual settlement could cost Ukraine more if current trends continue.

In her assessment, Kavanagh said Ukraine’s ability to defend strategic infrastructure has weakened, that its battlefield situation is deteriorating, and that Western support is softening. Each of those factors, she argued, reduces Kyiv’s bargaining power in potential talks, contrary to the belief in some European capitals and in Ukraine that time is on their side.

Her comments were carried by a Russian state-linked platform with its own information agenda, and they represent one strain of opinion in a wider Western debate rather than a consensus view. Still, the specifics she points to – infrastructure vulnerability, front-line pressure and political fatigue in donor states – reflect real pressures evident in public data and official statements.

Ukraine’s infrastructure challenges are visible in the repeated Russian strikes on power plants, substations, rail hubs and bridges. Every successful hit that takes out generating capacity or critical logistics complicates military operations and civilian life, and demands resources for repair rather than for new capabilities. An energy system under constant attack can make it harder for Kyiv to argue that it can sustain long‑term resistance without a negotiated pause or settlement.

On the battlefield, Russian forces have made incremental gains in several sectors and increasingly use stand‑off weapons and drones to grind down Ukrainian defenses. While the front line has not seen dramatic breakthroughs in recent months, a slow loss of positions, ammunition constraints and manpower strain all feed perceptions of a shifting balance.

Kavanagh’s third point – the trajectory of Western support – is at the heart of strategic discussions in Washington, Brussels and European capitals. Military and financial aid packages have become more politically contested in some donor countries, and long-term guarantees remain subject to electoral cycles and budget fights. If Kyiv’s allies send mixed messages or start conditioning support on moves toward negotiations, that changes the leverage equation at any talks table.

For Ukrainians, the idea that waiting will make any eventual deal worse rather than better carries obvious emotional and political weight. Leaders in Kyiv have repeatedly rejected concessions on territory or security alignment and argue that a frozen conflict only invites future aggression. Analysts like Kavanagh counter that wars often end at moments when both sides are unhappy but exhausted, and that the side whose position is slipping has fewer chips to cash in.

Strategically, the conversation matters even if no formal peace talks are on the horizon. Russia tracks Western debates closely and adjusts its own timelines and offensives based on how it reads political resolve in NATO states. Signals that influential voices in the U.S. view Ukraine’s position as weakening could encourage Moscow to hold out for better terms.

The most telling indicators in the months ahead will include the size and character of Western aid packages, the tempo of Russian offensive operations, Ukraine’s success or failure in protecting energy and transport nodes, and any shift in public language from Kyiv about acceptable negotiations. Together, they will show whether Kavanagh’s warning describes a path that Ukraine can still alter, or a trajectory that will shape the price it eventually pays for peace.