NextFin News - In a definitive statement regarding the long-term geopolitical architecture of Eastern Europe, Kyrylo Budanov, the head of the Office of the President of Ukraine and former military intelligence chief, declared on February 26, 2026, that Ukraine’s national security can only be guaranteed by the total collapse of Russia as an imperial entity. Speaking in an interview with the Arabic media outlet Al-Modon, Budanov emphasized that the international community should not wait for a internal change of regime in Moscow to solve the ongoing conflict, as the underlying "imperial essence" of the Russian state remains unchanged regardless of who sits in the Kremlin.
According to RBC-Ukraine, Budanov argued that Russia’s core ideology has remained stagnant through the Tsarist, Soviet, and modern eras, with none of these regimes prioritizing the welfare of their citizens over territorial expansion. He posited that the only viable scenario for a safe Ukraine and a stable Europe is the emergence of several independent regional states on current Russian territory. This pronouncement comes at a critical juncture as U.S. President Trump’s administration continues to navigate a complex mediation role, and Ukrainian officials like Defense Minister Rustem Umerov engage in high-level talks in Geneva to define the parameters of a future peace.
The shift in rhetoric from "regime change" to "imperial deconstruction" signals a deepening analytical conviction within the Ukrainian leadership. Budanov’s assessment is rooted in a historical-structuralist framework, suggesting that the Russian Federation is not a conventional nation-state but a colonial relic. By highlighting that Russia has become "poorer in all respects—economically, politically, and demographically" since 2014, Budanov points to a trend of systemic decline that has paradoxically sharpened Moscow's reliance on aggressive expansionism to maintain domestic legitimacy. From a financial and risk-analysis perspective, this suggests that as long as the centralized power structure remains intact, the "imperial tax"—the diversion of resources toward military adventurism—will continue to suppress Russian GDP growth and destabilize global energy and grain markets.
This perspective is echoed by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who recently expressed skepticism to journalist Piers Morgan regarding the effectiveness of simply removing Vladimir Putin. Zelenskyy noted that the system is designed to produce a "new Putin," reinforcing the idea that the problem is systemic rather than individual. Data from the last decade supports this: despite various sanctions and internal shifts, Russia’s military spending as a percentage of GDP has remained significantly higher than the global average, peaking at an estimated 6-7% during the height of the current conflict. This structural militarization suggests that the Russian economy has been re-engineered for perpetual confrontation, making a return to a "pre-war normal" impossible under the current political geography.
Looking forward, Budanov’s vision of a fragmented Russia implies a radical shift in global security policy. If the goal is the creation of regional states focused on local welfare, the international community would need to manage the transition of the world’s largest nuclear arsenal—a prospect that currently keeps many Western capitals cautious. However, the trend toward regionalism within Russia is already visible in the increasing autonomy of certain republics and the uneven economic impact of sanctions across different federal subjects. Analysts predict that if the central government’s ability to subsidize poorer regions continues to erode, the centrifugal forces Budanov describes could move from theoretical scenarios to active political movements.
Ultimately, the Ukrainian leadership is betting on a long-term historical correction. By framing the conflict not as a border dispute but as the final stage of decolonization in Europe, Budanov is preparing the diplomatic ground for a peace that requires more than a ceasefire. For global markets, this implies a prolonged period of volatility in the Eurasian space, as the transition from a monolithic empire to a collection of regional states would involve a total redrawing of trade routes, resource ownership, and security alliances. As the Geneva talks progress, the tension between immediate stability and Budanov’s vision of permanent security through imperial collapse will likely remain the central friction point in international relations.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
