U.S. analyst says Ukraine’s leverage in a future peace deal is eroding
Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at the Defense Priorities research center, told Russian outlet Sputnik that Ukraine’s negotiating power is slipping despite expectations in Kyiv and Europe that time favors them, citing declining protection of strategic infrastructure and worsening trends on the battlefield and in politics.
A U.S. defense analyst is warning that Ukraine’s position in any eventual peace talks may be weakening even as leaders in Kyiv and parts of Europe speak of outlasting Russia.
Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at the Defense Priorities research center, told Russian outlet Sputnik that Ukraine’s negotiating leverage is declining, contrary to what she described as a belief in Kyiv and Europe that time is on Ukraine’s side.
Kavanagh highlighted three broad reasons for this slide. One, she argued, is a weakening ability to defend key infrastructure such as energy and transport nodes, which have come under renewed Russian attack. Damage to power plants and rail hubs not only affects the war effort and civilian life now, but also weighs on Ukraine’s economic position in any future settlement.
She also referred to a worsening situation in other areas. Public debate around the war has frequently cited manpower pressures, ammunition shortfalls and uncertainty over sustaining Western military aid at current levels as potential vulnerabilities, though the brief report of her remarks did not spell out all of her specific examples.
In Kavanagh’s view, indicators that usually underpin negotiating strength—industrial resilience, frontline stability and external backing—are under strain rather than steadily improving. That assessment reflects one current in Western strategic thinking about how long Ukraine can maintain its present stance.
For Ukrainians, this discussion has practical implications. Every new strike that cuts power to large numbers of communities or halts production at factories reduces the material base the state brings into any talks. A country struggling to keep electricity and transport running has different priorities and vulnerabilities at the table than one whose infrastructure has held up.
Analysts who share Kavanagh’s skepticism argue that Russia can accept prolonged costs as long as it prevents major Ukrainian breakthroughs and keeps up pressure on energy and logistics. From that perspective, gradual degradation of Ukraine’s capacity could matter more than sudden advances on the map.
The political climate in donor countries is central to this. Contentious aid debates, elections and budget disputes that cast doubt on future support send signals to both Kyiv and Moscow about how long the current level of backing might last.
How widely Kavanagh’s warning is shared among officials will shape its impact. Signs to watch include whether similar views appear from senior Western figures, how Ukrainian leaders talk about timelines and objectives in upcoming statements, and whether pledges of new military and financial aid become firmer or more conditional over time.
Sources
- OSINT