Country: Ukraine Source: World Food Programme Please refer to the attached file. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2025 was the deadliest for civilians since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began, particularly for people living at the frontlines. It marked a significant escalation in hostilities despite efforts to impose a ceasefire, with Ukraine recording the highest levels of deadly violence for every month compared to previous years. The escalation of the war continues to disrupt domestic production, trade routes, energy supply, and foreign investment, further restricting Ukraine’s economic outlook. Attacks on ports significantly reduced Ukraine’s agricultural export capacity, which translated into higher prices and inflation, directly increasing household vulnerability. The human impact of the war continues to deepen, particularly among households living closest to active hostilities, with those residing within 50 km of the frontline bearing the greatest burden. More than 90% of all conflict events recorded in 2025 occurred within this zone, and 67% of civilian casualties also occurred near the frontline. Approximately 2 million war-affected people in Ukraine are identified as high-priority cases for humanitarian food assistance. More than half of the high-priority cases, about 1.2 million people, live within 50km of the frontline. This number reflects a vulnerability-driven analysis centered on four key issue areas: vulnerable populations within 50km of the frontline, IDPs, evacuees, and people affected by strikes. However, a nationwide analysis show that the overall number of food insecure people in Ukraine continues to rise, with an additional 1.5 million people now requiring food assistance across the country, compared to 2024. Households living within 50 km of the frontline are older, poorer, more dependent, and more reliant on assistance than those living further away. The proportion of elderlyonly households rises to 36% in the 0–50 km zone, compared to 27% beyond 50 km, while older persons living alone are significantly more common close to the frontline. Displacement and return dynamics are more pronounced close to the frontline with up to 30% of surveyed household within 50km of the frontline displaced and 20% returnees. Household-level analysis shows that at least one in four households at the frontlines are food insecure. This is more prevalence in the 20km zone in eastern and southern region where more than 30% of the households are food insecure. Rural households tend to experience higher levels of food insecurity than urban households, although the magnitude of this gap varies by proximity to the frontline. Within the 0– 20 km zone, 27% of rural households are food insecure compared to 22% of urban households. In the 20–50 km zone, food insecurity levels are nearly identical between rural and urban households (both around 21%). The higher share of food insecurity within frontline areas particularly among rural residents reflects both the direct effects of conflict and the concentration of vulnerable populations in these locations. Large families, households with elderly members living alone, and households with a member with a disability show food insecurity levels well above the overall average. Many food-insecure households continue to adopt unhealthy coping strategies including spending their savings, and more than half lack the economic capacity to meet their basic need without humanitarian assistance. consuming less preferred food or spending their savings, and more than half lack the economic capacity to meet their basic need without humanitarian assistance. Frontline households face compounded vulnerabilities. Limited economic opportunities, reduced agriculture production, deterioration in security, shelter and health lead to multidimensional deprivation. In fact, about half of food insecure households within 20km of the frontline are also multidimensionally deprived. While market generally functions, households living closest to the frontline continue to experience significant disruption in market access. About 20% of households within 20km of the frontline report lacking uninterrupted access to markets, and around 13%, particularly those living within 10 km of the frontline, report having no market access at all. Food assistance, provided both as in‑kind and cash transfers, has been central to alleviating immediate food gaps for vulnerable households in the frontline. WFP assistance is targeted toward households with the lowest economic capacity, and analysis shows that it translates into a measurable and meaningful reduction in food insecurity, reducing the probability of low economic capacity among assisted households by close to 20 percentage points. But with humanitarian funding declining and needs continuing to rise, many vulnerable households may soon be unable to access the food assistance they depend on. Three actions are critical to prevent a reversal of hard-won progress: First, sustaining monthly food assistance for the 2 million priority cases is essential, alongside protecting the 0–20 km frontline zone from coverage reductions, where the near-total collapse of local markets means that any cut would have immediate and severe consequences for household food security. Due to market disruption, the 0-20km zone is particularly suited for in-kind food distribution. Second, cash transfer values should be regularly adjusted to reflect documented food inflation, as maintaining outdated transfer levels results in a silent erosion of impact and undermines the purchasing power donors intend their contributions to deliver. Finally, robust impact evidence provides strong proof of effectiveness and should be actively leveraged in dialogue to justify sustained investment in Ukraine, particularly in contexts where assistance has successfully reduced visible needs without eliminating underlying vulnerability.