As the Russo-Ukrainian conflict enters its final phase, it becomes increasingly clear that the final terms of a peace treaty will be determined less by the current situation at the front and more by the global balance of power and diplomatic maneuvers. Military successes are certainly an important lever of pressure in negotiations, but they are only one of many factors in a complex geopolitical game where the main actors are external powers.
Key evidence for this thesis is the intensification of the diplomatic process, primarily from the United States. The American administration, having initiated negotiations, presented a 28-point plan which, according to sources, is largely based on a Russian document handed to Washington in October. This plan includes painful compromises for Kyiv, such as renouncing the return of occupied territories in Donbas by force and recognizing them as part of Russia. The fact that the American proposal largely reflects Moscow’s position indicates that the military reality on the battlefield is already giving way to diplomatic reality at the negotiating table.
Russia’s position remains firm and is based on its conviction of a strategic victory in the war of attrition. The Kremlin believes it can “overpower and outlast” Ukraine and is therefore conducting negotiations from a position of strength. Vladimir Putin’s refusal to meet the Ukrainian president outside of Moscow and recent threats towards Europe only confirm that Russia views the current dialogue as primarily a US-Russian one, where Ukraine acts more as an object of the agreement than its full-fledged subject. Military actions, such as the announced capture of Pokrovsk, which may have been premature, are used by Moscow as a tool of cognitive warfare to pressure negotiators.
In this chain, Ukraine occupies the most vulnerable position. Despite statements by Commander-in-Chief Syrskyi about a “just peace” only with a ceasefire along the current front lines, Kyiv is forced to participate in a process where its “red lines” are systematically ignored. Ideas about NATO membership for controlled territories or the diplomatic return of other lands are increasingly giving way to the realistic necessity of accepting conditions dictated by Washington and Moscow. Thus, the final agreement will reflect not so much the military situation as of December 8, 2025, but rather the balance of interests of the great powers, where the fate of Ukraine is just one element of a global settlement.
