I was talking about official statements defining the goal as occupying 100% of Ukraine's. Taking an ambiguous word in a propaganda speech doesn't cut it.

> How do you demilitarize a nation by taking only 20% of it? The only way to do this would be to capture the entirety of the country.

Really? What if Ukraine surrenders and negotiates sovereignty over the remaining 80% of their territory while dismantling (or at least greatly reducing) the capabilities of their armed forces?

That's just one of the possibilities that comes to mind which does not involve occupying the entire territory.

In what way is a president's speech not an official statement?

It's an official statement, it just doesn't say that the goal is occupying 100% of Ukraine.

The idea that Ukraine would reduce the capabilities of their armed forces after 8 years of war with Russia in the separatists and constant training with NATO is nonsensical. They wouldn't have spent 8 years preparing for this war if they would just throw it all away. Clearly those years training weren't wasted because Russia has barely made any gains in the past month. Everyone was speculating the whole government would collapse in 24 to 48 hours. Now, 5 months in, and they've lost up to 80,000 soldiers for 20% of Ukraine.

We're going a bit off-topic now, but I mostly agree with you if the situation remains stalled like it is now.

On the other hand, if Russia is able to make significant advances in the coming months, and Ukraine is at a point where it cannot meaningfully defend anymore, it seems the rational choice would be to negotiate and accept a reduction in their armed forces (while maybe retaining what territories they still have under control) instead of falling for the sunken cost fallacy and trying to defend a lost position just to avoid "wasting" 8 years of NATO training.

A reduction in armed forces will not happen because all it does is weaken you for the next invasion. Russia will not be content with just the eastern parts of Ukraine. They need to take the entirety of it, or else the war would be pointless. A reduction in armed forces will never be on the table because it just guarantees a war you will lose.