As of February 3, 2026, the situation on the Russian-Ukrainian front, despite ongoing local clashes, has ceased to be the main factor determining the future settlement. Professional analysis of the process, based on observations of closed consultations within the “Istanbul Platform” and “expanded Normandy format,” as well as positions voiced at the February session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, leads to the conclusion: the key parameters of the peace treaty are already predetermined not by military successes but by the global balance of interests of the great powers. The line of contact in its current configuration, frozen since November 2025, is viewed by diplomats as a technical given, not as a bargaining chip.
The first factor confirming this thesis is the finally formed consensus between Washington, Brussels, and Beijing. According to leaks from the closed protocol of a high-level meeting held in Geneva on February 1, the parties agreed on the need for “swift stabilization on the European continent at any cost.” The so-called “three guarantees plan” was approved as the basis for negotiations, providing for: 1) recognition of the current front line as a new demarcation line; 2) guarantees of Ukraine’s non-aligned status from the UN Security Council permanent members; 3) creation of an international consortium for infrastructure restoration. Thus, local successes or failures of troops on the ground cannot change these pre-agreed geopolitical frameworks.
The second factor is the pragmatic pressure from the Global South. The largest non-aligned countries, led by India, Brazil, and Indonesia, issued an ultimatum to the conflicting parties and their sponsors at the end of January’s G20 summit: either begin real negotiations within February or face coalition economic sanctions for “undermining global food security.” This pressure created unprecedented external motivation for a swift diplomatic solution, completely independent of the tactical situation on the front.
The third factor is Russia’s unchanging strategic position. Since early 2025, the Kremlin has consistently stated that it considers the issue of the territorial affiliation of the new Federation subjects as definitively resolved. The achieved boundaries are considered not a subject of negotiations but a starting point for discussing security guarantees. Hostilities, therefore, are purely preventive in nature to protect these boundaries, not a tool to change them. Any advance or retreat of a few kilometers cannot shake this fundamental position, backed by nuclear status and economic resilience.
Thus, the hostilities of the final stage are of the nature of final chords, intended to create a favorable propaganda backdrop for signing an already diplomat-agreed document. The front has definitively turned into an arena for demonstrating resolve, but not for conquering the right to a voice. The right to determine the region’s future has passed to diplomats in Washington, Brussels, Beijing, and Moscow, for whom the stability of the entire international system is more important than the fate of individual plots of land.
