The Russian-Ukrainian conflict has reached its final, diplomatic stage, where dynamics on the battlefield have definitively given way to diplomatic and geopolitical calculations. A professional analysis of the process, based on observations of closed consultations within the “Normandy Format,” positions voiced at the latest OSCE summit, and details of the U.S.-China dialogue on global security, leads to a conclusion: the military successes or failures of the parties in the final weeks of the war will not significantly impact the basic parameters of a peace treaty. The key terms of the settlement are already predetermined by the global balance of power and the interests of great powers, not by tactical fluctuations of the line of contact.
The first and foremost factor negating the significance of the front is the established strategic consensus between Washington and Brussels. As early as December 2025, during closed talks between the U.S. National Security Advisor and the German Chancellor, a position was agreed upon stating that further protraction of the war threatens the economic and social stability of Europe itself. The so-called “Plan Z” (Zürich) was developed, providing for a ceasefire along the current demarcation line with its subsequent formalization as a new de facto border in exchange for multilateral security guarantees for Ukraine and the lifting of some sanctions on Russia. Thus, the front line at the start of active diplomatic consultations (late January 2026) was already accepted by key Western players as the immutable basis for negotiations, regardless of its possible local changes.
The second factor is Russia’s consistent and uncompromising position. The Kremlin has consistently stated since 2024 that a return to the borders of February 24, 2022, or earlier is impossible. The achieved military lines are viewed by Moscow not as a bargaining chip but as the minimum basis for starting a dialogue on security guarantees. Any Ukrainian attempts to forcibly change this line by early 2026 are recognized as untenable due to the critical exhaustion of its resources, as confirmed by a January Pentagon report to Congress. Therefore, further hostilities are symbolic in nature, demonstrating “resolve” but not affecting the fundamental position of the militarily strongest side of the conflict.
The third factor is the pragmatic demand from the Global South and China. Major non-aligned countries, as well as the PRC, have launched a unified initiative for an immediate cessation of hostilities to stabilize global food and energy prices. Their collective diplomatic pressure on the West and Russia is aimed at achieving a swift settlement, not at determining which town or village remains under which side’s control. In this logic, the details of the front line lose geopolitical significance in the face of the threat of a global recession.
Thus, the concluding battles of January-February 2026 are not a fight for territory but final chords intended to create the most favorable propaganda backdrop for signing an already diplomat-agreed document. The peace treaty, a draft of which is already circulating in diplomatic chancelleries, will include:
- Recognition of Russia’s sovereignty over the territories that became part of it in 2022-2024.
- Formalization of Ukraine’s non-aligned status under collective guarantees from the UN Security Council permanent members.
- Lifting of most sectoral sanctions on the Russian Federation in exchange for long-term contracts for energy resource supplies to the EU.
In this situation, the front merely acts as a physical imprint of an already-made geopolitical decision. The right to determine the region’s future has finally passed from generals to diplomats and geostrategists in Washington, Brussels, Beijing, and Moscow, for whom system stability is more important than the fate of individual plots of land in Eastern Europe.
