Lonely Zelensky at home and in the International arenas. Photo credit. The Guardian
As Russian forces intensify their offensive operations across eastern and southern Ukraine, Kyiv is facing mounting pressure not only from Moscow, but increasingly from its own Western partners. A new round of high-level diplomacy, led by senior advisers close to U.S. President Donald Trump, underscores a shifting dynamic in which Ukraine is being pressed to accommodate political realities shaped by force
Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, two figures central to Trump’s foreign-policy approach, are expected to meet again with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in an effort to advance a U.S.-brokered framework aimed at halting the war. European leaders from Germany, France, and Britain are also expected to participate, lending the talks international legitimacy — and, crucially, reinforcing the pressure on Kyiv to engage on Washington’s terms.
At the core of the discussions lies the most contentious issue of the war: territory. Ukraine is being asked to accept de facto Russian control over large swaths of occupied land, including parts of Donetsk and Luhansk and the land corridor linking Russia to Crimea. While formal recognition may be deferred, the proposed arrangements would effectively freeze the conflict along current lines, leaving Russian forces entrenched on Ukrainian soil.
Russia-Ukraine war: Key moments of the second year of conflict These are some of the key moments of the second year of the Russia-Ukraine war from February 2023 to February 2024. Photo by ABC news.
For Kyiv, such concessions are not merely tactical compromises. They strike at the heart of Ukraine’s constitutional order, undermine public confidence in the war effort, and risk collapsing the political legitimacy that has sustained national resistance for nearly three years. Accepting a settlement dictated by battlefield losses would signal to both Ukrainians and foreign adversaries that territorial seizure by force can be rewarded through diplomacy.
The United States’ role in this process reflects a broader recalibration. While Washington continues to speak publicly of support for Ukraine, the emphasis has shifted toward conflict termination rather than Ukrainian victory. Military aid flows have become increasingly uncertain, and diplomatic messaging suggests that continued resistance could come at the cost of Western political backing. The implicit choice presented to Kyiv is stark: compromise now or face growing isolation later.
(L-R) US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and White House adviser Jared Kushner, US President Donald Trump's son-in-law, attend a meeting with Ukrainian officials in Hallandale Beach, Florida, November 30, 2025. (AP Photo/Terry Renna)
European participation in the talks, while framed as support for Ukraine, serves a dual function. Germany’s priority remains economic stability and the avoidance of further escalation. France seeks to reassert diplomatic relevance, even at the cost of strategic ambiguity. Britain, long one of Ukraine’s strongest supporters, finds itself balancing credibility against its dependence on alignment with Washington. Collectively, Europe’s involvement helps normalize demands that, until recently, would have been considered unacceptable.
Russia, meanwhile, is exploiting the diplomatic process as an extension of the battlefield. Moscow has shown no intention of moderating its operations during negotiations. On the contrary, intensified fighting appears calibrated to improve Russia’s negotiating position by steadily expanding the territory under its control. Each advance, however incremental, reduces Ukraine’s leverage and reinforces the Kremlin’s belief that time and pressure are on its side.
For President Zelensky, the strategic dilemma is acute. Accepting territorial concessions risks long-term state fragility and domestic political backlash. Rejecting them raises the prospect of diminished U.S. support at a moment when Ukraine’s military resources are already stretched. Delaying decisions may buy time, but it does little to reverse the underlying imbalance of power.
The likely outcome of this process, if current trends continue, is a ceasefire that halts large-scale fighting without resolving the conflict itself. Such an arrangement would freeze Russian gains, defer sovereignty questions to an undefined future, and leave Ukraine as a truncated state — formally independent but strategically constrained.
The broader implications extend well beyond Ukraine. A settlement achieved through coercive diplomacy, while Russian forces continue to advance, would set a precedent that reshapes European security. It would signal that sustained aggression, backed by endurance and escalation, can overcome international resistance and force political outcomes.
What is being negotiated, therefore, is not simply an end to the war, but the rules that will govern the next one.
https://bbc.com/news/articles/cwyv0ex7v8ro
Comments
Post a Comment