Over a thousand days have passed since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. As the conflict has developed, the prospects of a negotiated settlement have dwindled.
In the immediate aftermath of the outbreak of war on February 24th 2022, Ukrainian and Russian diplomats entered into a dialogue through intermediaries and diplomatic back channels.
Preliminary negotiations in Belarus and Antalya led to media reports alleging Ukraine’s willingness to renounce NATO membership and accept Russian as the second official language. Turkish President Erdoğan claimed Russia’s occupation of Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk remained the main roadblock in the path to peace. In the weeks that followed, draft proposals to introduce a 24-hour ‘humanitarian ceasefire’ failed to materialise.
The prospect of peace reached a nadir following the discovery of Russian war crimes in Bucha, a city northeast of Kyiv. Images of the mass murder of civilians, rape, the mutilation of corpses and summary executions filled international media, leading to widespread condemnation and a rightful Ukrainian refusal to return to the negotiating table.
A series of successful Ukrainian counter offensives targeting Kherson and Kharkiv in July and August 2022, along with Ukraine’s incursion into Russia’s Kursk Oblast in August 2024, placed Russia on the back foot. The ‘offensive Ukraine’ forced Russia to reconsider troop movements, exposing vulnerabilities in the once-feared army’s logistical networks. At this time, Russia ruled out a negotiation – likely waiting for an advantageous battlefield position that could translate into favourable settlement terms.
Aided by thousands of North Korean troops, Russia has offset Ukrainian gains in Kursk, save for the key pipeline town of Sudzha. Despite an escalating casualty count – nearly 750,000 by some estimates – Russia has made gradual land gains in the east. Analysts at the Institute for the Study of War expect Russia to seize full control of Luhansk Oblast, whilst they advance upon the key logistics hub of Pokrovsk.
The re-emergence of attritional warfare in the East, along with a Russian resurgence on the battlefield, has led to renewed calls for a negotiated settlement.
The turning point was Donald Trump’s victory in the recent US presidential elections - Trump campaigned heavily on ending the war ‘within 24 hours of taking office’. His appointment of retired lieutenant general Keith Kellogg as special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, who has encouraged direct negotiations between Zelensky and Putin, indicates the new administration’s approach to the conflict.
Trump’s sway over NATO allies has seen Secretary General Mark Rutte acknowledge the prospect of a negotiated end to the war, whilst Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán has shot down an EU sanctions package on Russia until after January 20th. Whilst Russophiles might have been emboldened by Trump’s remarks, British PM Starmer and French President Macron have reiterated the need for military assistance for Ukraine.
Ukraine faces an unreliable network of Western states, fearful of Kremlin rhetoric and crossing ‘red lines’. At this critical juncture, it remains to be seen whether NATO can present a unified front for Ukraine in 2025. Indeed, the US’ position is still largely unclear, with Kellogg set to visit Kyiv on a ‘fact-finding trip’ in January.
At the crux of the Ukrainian negotiation position is a steadfast commitment to its territorial integrity – a return to the pre-2014 borders, with Crimea and the Donbas within the territory of Ukraine. However, this outcome is exceedingly unlikely, given Ukraine’s military constraints and a lack of international momentum regarding the return of Crimea.
In recent months, it appears Kyiv has begun to publicly accept this new reality. The pressure of a Trump administration, chronic ammunition shortages and conscription concerns seem to be forcing Ukraine’s hand.
In a recent Sky News interview, President Zelensky spoke of his intention to bring the unoccupied areas of Ukraine – being approximately 80% of Ukrainian territory – under the ‘NATO umbrella’, in order to end the ‘hot phase’ of the conflict and thereby grant Ukraine reprieve in the form of a temporary cessation of hostilities.
Speaking to Le Parisien, Zelensky admitted that Ukraine did not have the strength to remove Russian troops from the occupied territories. He instead claimed that diplomatic pressure could force Putin to withdraw from Crimea and eastern Ukraine, once Ukraine regained an advantage militarily.
And so, Ukraine enters perhaps the cruellest stage of the war. An intense resilience and determination to be independent of Putin’s Eurasianist project has ensured Ukraine still stands – an unexpected outcome for many. Yet, Ukraine may be undermined by the very allies who have ensured its survival over the past 3 years.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin predictably calls for the immediate cessation of the occupied Oblasts and Ukraine’s commitment to neutrality, meaning a ban on NATO membership. Entertaining Russia’s demands would represent a threat to democracy and self-determination, and set a dangerous precedent for expansionist thugs the world over.
To quote from the Ukrainian Constitution, Ukraine’s territory is ‘indivisible and inviolable’. Each oblast, each raion and each hromada is an enduring piece of Ukrainian statehood. By allowing Russia to occupy Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson and Crimea, the West extends a carte blanche to carve marches and hinterlands from weaker ex-Soviet neighbours.
Recognising Russian claims over Crimea and the Donbas would be a dangerous legitimisation of tyranny, and will inevitably embolden Russia to assert control over the eastern European periphery via brute force, underpinned by the Kremlin’s tenuous historical revisionism.
And so, as 2025 begins, Ukraine faces a trade-off between defending its sovereignty or prioritising its security – and the end of the war is far from certain.
Image: Flickr/NATO
No image changes made.
Comments