Massive Russian drone and missile strikes have battered cities and infrastructure across Ukraine. With power, water and often heating cut for long stretches—sometimes 20 hours a day or more—and temperatures falling toward -15°C, many Ukrainians are enduring a harsh, punishing winter.
Surveys show the public mood has darkened as exhaustion and stress mount. Oleksiy Antypovych of the Rating Group says more people are frustrated by the unrelenting attacks and bitter weather, but he stresses this frustration reflects the emotional cost of four years of war rather than a shift in political loyalties. Ukrainians, he adds, remain unwilling to accept a peace that meets the Kremlin’s demands.
Analysts at the Razumkov Center make a similar point. Andriy Bychenko argues that most citizens, informed by recent events and historical experience, understand that capitulation or an unfavorable settlement would not improve their lives. The trauma of occupation and attacks in places such as Kherson, Kharkiv and around Kyiv has hardened opinion and left little appetite for concessions.
A Kyiv International Institute for Sociology (KIIS) poll conducted Jan. 9–14 found that 69% of respondents view Russia’s war as an existential threat—fearing Moscow intends genocide or the destruction of Ukraine’s nationhood and statehood; that share was 66% a year earlier. At the same time, 77% said Ukraine still has the capacity to keep resisting despite Russian gains. KIIS executive director Anton Grushetskyi said the results point to a population that remains largely resolute and optimistic about sustaining effective resistance; only a small minority see resistance as futile.
Oleh Saakyan of the National Platform for Resilience and Solidarity says relentless attacks and infrastructure damage have not driven Ukrainians toward compromise. If anything, continued aggression has deepened fatigue, anger and hostility toward Russia. Protests that do occur are generally local and focused on municipal problems rather than challenging Kyiv’s central leadership. Polling similarly shows no major surge in dissatisfaction with national leaders; many people appear prepared to endure the conflict until its end.
Experts contend that one of Russia’s key miscalculations was underestimating Ukrainian social cohesion and civic organization. Military analyst Oleksiy Kopytko notes that the culture of mutual help—once confined largely to families and friends—has been extended outward to strangers and broader communities, forming an informal support network essential for survival. Social norms, including a stigma attached to exploitative behavior, have helped preserve trust and collective resilience.
Support for President Volodymyr Zelenskyy remains an important element of this resilience. Antypovych points out that while 69% are skeptical that current negotiations will yield lasting peace, many place their trust in Zelenskyy rather than in Russia, foreign leaders, or negotiating teams. Saakyan adds that strong domestic solidarity and public backing for the president bolster Ukraine’s negotiating position; memories of the failed Minsk agreements make people wary of any deal that might simply invite renewed conflict.
Despite severe hardships, Ukrainians continue to improvise—setting up warming stations, fashioning makeshift heating, organizing local mutual aid—and draw strength from communal solidarity. Experts say that this social cohesion is a central asset helping sustain resistance through the winter and beyond.
Translated from German by Jon Shelton.