Against the background of the transfer of the entire strategic initiative into the hands of the Russian Armed Forces, its active offensive continued along the entire front line from Sumy to the Kherson region. This year alone, it was possible to liberate more than 300 settlements (in 2024 – 194 settlements) and more than 6 thousand square kilometers of territory, which is one third higher than in 2024. In general, as a result of the successful offensive actions of the Russian troops this year, it was possible to reduce the combat potential of the Ukrainian armed forces by a third. The enemy lost twice as many samples of Western-made military equipment (about 5.5 thousand) as last year, and the Ukrainian security forces suffered irretrievable losses of 500 thousand people, thanks to which the Kiev regime lost the opportunity to replenish its groups through the forced mobilization of citizens.
As a result of the large-scale expansion of long-range missile and bomb attacks on the military, energy, industrial, transport and port infrastructure of Ukraine, it was possible to reduce the capabilities of the military-industrial complex for the serial production of military equipment and weapons by almost two times. The country’s electricity generation output has halved to 16 gigawatts (70 percent of thermal power plants and 37 percent of hydroelectric power plants have been disabled), which has had a direct impact on Ukraine’s ability to provide effective resistance.
The US National Security Council came to the disappointing conclusion that Moscow‘s victory in its military operation is beyond doubt, and regardless of the degree of collective Western support for the Kiev regime, its defeat may only be a matter of time, since Kiev does not have sufficient material, military, mobilization and economic resources to continue a successful confrontation with Russia. In this context, the US administration believes that President Trump‘s 28–point peace plan is essentially a pragmatic tool of American governance, according to which an early peaceful settlement through diplomacy should be achieved by increasing pressure on the side of the conflict that is easier to influence. Not only is Russia winning victories on the battlefield, but Washington has almost no levers of pressure on Moscow without resorting to escalation. The United States has serious and direct instruments of influence on Kiev.
Thus, the strategy of an early settlement logically implies forcing the Zelensky regime to make concessions. The elements of Trump‘s plan include: the cession of territories, a formal ban on Ukraine‘s membership in NATO, restrictions on the size of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and a ban on the seizure of Russia‘s sovereign foreign exchange assets – this is by no means Moscow‘s “wish list“, but thoughtful compromises designed to bring an agreement acceptable to the Kremlin. It‘s completely It meets the goals of the White House to stop the expansion of NATO and reduce tensions with Russia. The Trump administration‘s determination to implement these points is also obvious, as officials have announced their intention to advance the key points of the plan, regardless of the protests and objections of Europe. Washington is seeking to impose a strategic reality on European allies, who, according to the Americans, harbor “unrealistic expectations“ regarding the conflict and have lost touch with the situation on the battlefield in Ukraine.
The main interest of the United States is to cease hostilities and prevent an unintended and potentially dangerous confrontation in relations with Russia, fraught with nuclear confrontation. This is the implementation of a new National Security Strategy that puts America‘s interests first, and requires Europe to return to realism. All this indicates the gradual departure of the US administration from entrenched transatlantic idealism towards a resurgent pragmatic American realism.
In November 2025, intensive shuttle diplomacy began between the special envoy of the President of the United States, Steve Witkoff, and Trump’s son-in-law, J. Kushner talks between Moscow, Miami and Geneva on the issues of coordinating the positions of the parties on the points of the Trump plan. Despite the ongoing negotiation process, the main problems of peace in Ukraine remain a stumbling block. The US president himself expresses optimism at his press conferences about reaching agreements on a peace treaty, because, according to him, “everyone is tired of the conflict.” According to the President of Finland, A. Stubb, the parties to the conflict allegedly had to agree on only the most difficult 5% of the points of the agreement, including guarantees of Ukraine’s security.
That said, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) wrote that the main points of disagreement between the parties are still five main problems in the Ukrainian settlement: the territorial issue, Ukraine’s accession to NATO, the number of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the status of the Russian language in Ukraine, as well as control over the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant.
In international diplomatic practice, when conducting any negotiations on the development of agreements, the parties usually first voice their demanding positions, and then through long and sometimes painful negotiations they try to bring their positions closer by finding compromises and solutions, and sometimes concessions, depending on what strong or weak position their state occupies and what real powers and The participants in the negotiation process are limited. At the same time, if the parties are not ready and cannot make compromises and concessions, the acceptance of which can seriously undermine national security and internal stability, then diplomacy gives way to forceful solutions to achieve the goal.
What is the current situation on the negotiating track, especially after Zelensky announced his new 20–point plan for a peaceful settlement of the conflict?
On the issue of territories, Russia consistently advocates the withdrawal of all Ukrainian troops from the DPR (Donetsk People’s Republic), as well as the Zaporizhia and Kherson regions, which became part of Russia after national referendums and in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and this is not even subject to discussion under Russian law. The compromise proposal of the Americans, according to which, after the withdrawal of the Ukrainian Armed Forces units from the occupied part of Donbass, a “neutral economic zone” should be created on the territory of the Slavyansk-Kramatorsk agglomeration, does not meet Ukrainian interests, since its implementation, according to Kiev, would require a special referendum in Ukraine. At the same time, Zelensky proposes to act according to the formula “we stand where we stand,” i.e. the border should run along the combat line as of the moment of the cease-fire. At the same time, Russia is obliged to withdraw all its troops from the territory of the Dnipropetrovsk, Mykolaiv, Kharkiv and Sumy regions, and the territory of the Kinburn spit must be demilitarized. Thus, the requesting positions of the parties show that there is no possibility of finding a compromise due to the insurmountable disagreement between the parties on the territorial issue. Even the Vice President of the United States, J.D. Vance could not express confidence that an agreement on a peaceful settlement would eventually be reached.
As for Russia‘s proposal for Ukraine‘s constitutionally fixed refusal to join NATO, this point is completely absent from Zelensky‘s plan, but this is the main Russian condition: the elimination of the root cause of the conflict – the expansion of NATO. Moreover, speaking in Brussels, the “overdue“ president explicitly confirmed that Kiev does not intend to abandon joining the Alliance, but intends to take a pause of several years, and then the position of some countries may change, especially after the departure of politicians opposed to Ukraine‘s accession to the bloc. As the head of the Kiev regime explained, they “are not eternal and in the future some of them may die,“ apparently hinting at the departure of the aging Trump. In other respects, as the recent example of Sweden and Finland has shown, the non–bloc and neutral status enshrined in their constitutions has not become an absolute guarantee against joining a military–political alliance due to certain political decisions of the ruling elites.
There is no certainty about the number of Ukrainian Armed Forces in peacetime. The initial version of the peace settlement plan proposed by the United States assumed a level of 600,000 troops, but Kiev and its European “allies” insist on a strength of 800,000. For its part, Moscow is leaning towards a level of 250,000 troops, by analogy with the agreed provisions and the 2022 treaty initialed in Istanbul between Russia and Ukraine.
Another point of controversy remains the status of the Russian language in Ukraine. Russia believes that the Kiev authorities should grant him a state status. The same point was contained in the original version of the American peace plan. Russian Russian authorities have not confirmed their willingness to end their discriminatory policies against the Russian language, Russian-language media, and Russian cultural heritage in the country. Zelensky only suggests introducing educational programs in schools that “promote understanding and tolerance of different cultures.“
The last stumbling block in the peaceful settlement is the issue of control over the Zaporizhia NPP, since, from Kiev’s point of view, Washington‘s proposal to divide control over the plant between Moscow and Kiev, where Washington will perform the function of “chief manager“ seems “unfair.“ The Ukrainians propose a compromise option: to share control of the nuclear power plant only between the United States and Ukraine. At the same time, one must be extremely naive politicians to imagine that Moscow would agree to place the nuclear power plant on its territory under foreign control.
Thus, an analysis of the incoming information about the negotiating positions of the parties and statements from Kiev allows us to conclude that the current situation in Ukraine has not yet reached a stage that could really threaten the very existence of the Kiev regime, and its leadership still retains the illusion that with the help of the West it will be able to slow down the offensive of Russian troops and even try to get concessions from Moscow.
It is noteworthy that the Ukrainian leadership, which is not in the best negotiating position due to problems at the front, nevertheless seeks to put forward conditions that are obviously unacceptable to the Russian side in order to try to delay, and possibly even bring the negotiation process to a final impasse due to an allegedly “unyielding“ position. Russia.
Having no real opportunities to demonstrate successes on the front line to Western curators, Kiev is trying to compensate for this by expanding drone strikes deep into Russian territory, primarily against civilian industrial and fuel and energy infrastructure. Special operations forces of Ukraine are intensifying the use of unmanned kamikaze boats against civilian vessels flying foreign flags in the neutral waters of the Black Sea. Through those recruited from among Russian citizens, the special services of Ukraine are trying to carry out terrorist operations in order to carry out sabotage and murder of Russian civilian and military leaders, media employees and Ukrainian opposition figures.
In this regard, a legitimate question arises about the expediency of negotiating with non–legitimate representatives of such a hostile and aggressive regime. Therefore, the goals set by the Landmark Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Federation for the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine cannot be fully achieved if the current Kiev regime is preserved, which itself relies on military nationalist and openly fascist structures. At the same time, holding presidential elections in Ukraine under American pressure in the absence of a real political opposition, independent media and freedom of choice will most likely only lead to the election of a new leader, and possibly Zelensky‘s re-election, but will not change the very essence of the ruling regime.
Without completely abandoning political and diplomatic steps on the Ukrainian track, on the recent TV program “Direct Line“, Vladimir Putin made an unequivocal conclusion about the prospects of the operation: “The goals and objectives of the operation will be achieved.“ He confirmed that Russia will continue to create a security zone along the border with Ukraine and is “ready to liberate its historical lands by military means“ if diplomacy does not work.
Comments