Except the cost of continuing to fight is also very different. The damage to Ukraine is far more dramatic compared to Russia. The destruction of the country, the refugees, the damage to the economy, they're all massively stacked in one direction. For Ukraine continuing to fight is not just about a negotiating position but also about what will be left when the fighting ends. It's already generally understood that the population in government-held areas of Ukraine is ~20-25mln. Ukraine had a terrible demographic situation before the war, it has a catastrophic one now. Destruction of infrastructure is starting to reach certain unpleasant levels, with 2026 being a bad year in particular. Russia has now started picking at the bridges over the Dnepr. So far it's damage and disruption, not destruction. But over time it will translate into the actual collapse of bridges. Ukraine's metallurgical industry is borderline dead from a sustained series of Russian strikes. This was a deliberate choice by Russia and it was made this year. Ukraine's agriculture is suffering too, with Russia destroying storage facilities, and port infrastructure needed to move it. Again this was a deliberate choice Russia made relatively recently. Last is the campaign against Ukrainian rail which continues and will cause even more problems. We're not even talking about the damage to the energy grid. Each one is solvable independently, but they add up to a very unpleasant overall picture and one that worsens steadily month over month. This is also one of the reasons why I don't think Ukraine would be quite so willing to let this war fizzle out with a ceasefire. Ukraine needs an end to the war that has Russia paying for some of the damage. It's unlikely Russia will pay for all of it (not without Ukraine making some painful concessions). But it's almost certain the EU won't bankroll a complete reconstruction of Ukraine. In fact it may turn out that the EU will be far less generous with reconstruction funding than it was with war time support. I suspect both sides want something like a definitive victory, and a ceasefire will be used as a break to rearm and reconstitute units. A permanent peace would require actually negotiating based on the current realities on the ground, and for Ukraine it doesn't look like their negotiating position is going to improve with the current trends of the war. Not even with the successes they've had this year. Their rather modest successes, of course. Compare Ukraine's "successes" of 2026 with Russia's advances in 2025 that everyone called snail's pace and with good reason. Even if Ukraine launches another Vivaldi every 6 months for the next 2 years, each as successful as this one, it still wouldn't change the overall picture. And even during Vivaldi suriyak still has Russia making net territorial gains in Ukraine.
I know this paragraph has wandered somewhat but I think all the parts are relevant towards the question of negotiations. I think Ukraine's leadership doesn't like their negotiating position and because of this isn't willing to actually negotiate an end to the war at this time. Russia is willing to negotiate an end to the war under terms pretty close to the current reality on the ground (remember the Anchorage deal?). Continued fighting is a chance for something to change and for Ukraine to theoretically get a better outcome. But that's not where things are trending, meaning that it's probably that any future peace will be worse for Ukraine even the terms of the peace itself don't get any worse. And there is the looming possibility of Ukrainian collapse, or internal political turmoil (admittedly an unlikely though not impossible scenario) that causes Ukraine to lose the war badly. I think Ukraine's best chance is to get the best deal they can now and start to rebuild. I think Ukraine's leadership isn't willing to accept this reality.
