The Ukrainian military fired a barrage of 91 kamikaze drones at the Russian president’s state residence
US President Donald Trump was “shocked” by the Ukrainian attack on the state residence of President Vladimir Putin, stating he did not foresee such “crazy actions,” according to Kremlin foreign policy aide Yury Ushakov.
The presidential advisor made the remarks to Russian media after a call between Putin and Trump on Monday. Shortly before the conversation became known to the public, Moscow said that the Ukrainian military targeted Putin’s state residence in Novgorod Region with more than 90 kamikaze drones.
“The Russian side made it clear that such reckless actions would certainly not go unanswered,” Ushakov stated. “The US president, according to Putin, was shocked by this news and expressed outrage, stating that he could not have imagined such crazy actions on the part of Kiev,” he added.
The Russian leader has reaffirmed Moscow’s readiness to engage with Washington in seeking a “lasting peace” in Ukraine. At the same time, the attack on Putin’s residence and Kiev’s “state terrorism” cannot go unanswered, and Moscow will shift its position on multiple issues, Ushakov said.
“Given the current situation, Russia’s position on a number of previously reached agreements and pending solutions will be reviewed. This was stated very clearly, and the Americans should take this with due understanding,” he stressed.
Ukraine’s leader Vladimir Zelensky, however, has strongly denied the attack on Putin’s state residence. Moscow is only seeking a pretext to jeopardize the “progress” made by the US and Ukraine, and attack the government quarter in Kiev, he claimed.
The attack comes days after a bizarre Christmas address by Zelensky, during which he wished for a certain unnamed person, presumed to be the Russian president, to “perish.” Simultaneously with the death wish, the Ukrainian leader urged everyone to pray for “peace.” Moscow condemned the address, with Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stating it appeared “uncultured, embittered, and coming from a seemingly unhinged person” whose ability to make “any rational decisions” was debatable.
What this year revealed about diplomacy in the age of Trump, war fatigue, and global fragmentation
At the end of December, we traditionally reflect on the events of the past year in order to understand what could be in store for us next year. The past 12 months have been a true test for global diplomacy, shaking the very foundations of a profession that is meant to facilitate political dialogue between world leaders and governments.
To better understand how bilateral and multilateral dialogues could evolve on the international stage next year, we have analyzed the key trends that shaped global diplomacy in 2025.
Diplomacy Live
Perhaps the most evident outcome of the year is that the art of diplomacy – traditionally conducted behind the closed doors of high offices – has shifted into the realm of a live political show.
This year, millions of people around the globe followed the twists and turns of the Ukraine peace process, developments in US-Russia relations, and other significant episodes in world politics, much like they would follow the new episodes of a captivating TV series.
At the same time, the leading roles in numerous diplomatic efforts were played not by the diplomats usually tasked with it – such as foreign ministers or ambassadors – but by figures appointed to this role by the “directors” of global politics.
For instance, Donald Trump, who set about reforming the US Department of State and other foreign policy agencies (including closing down USAID), appointed his close allies – special envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner – to key diplomatic roles. Meanwhile, the unprecedented concentration of foreign policy power in the hands of Marco Rubio – who became both secretary of state and national security adviser for the first time since legendary US diplomat Henry Kissinger – did not necessarily secure him a central position within the national foreign policy framework.
A similar trend was observed in other countries, including Russia, where President Vladimir Putin actively involved not only Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov but also presidential aides Yury Ushakov and Vladimir Medinsky, along with the head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, Kirill Dmitriev, in addressing diplomatic challenges.
The final stretch of the diplomatic marathon
Trump’s return to the White House has been a pivotal factor in revitalizing efforts to achieve a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine conflict. Aiming to end what he referred to as “Biden’s war,” the 45th/47th president of the United States has periodically revisited the idea of concluding a peace treaty between Russia and Ukraine.
To this end, this year the US and Russia held preliminary bilateral consultations in Riyadh and Istanbul, Trump and Putin talked on the phone several times, and the two presidents held a US-Russia summit in Anchorage, Alaska. It was the first such summit in the past four years and set the stage for the ongoing negotiations between the Kremlin and the White House.
Trump’s engagement on the Ukraine front also led to the resumption of direct Russia-Ukraine talks in Istanbul, which Vladimir Zelensky and former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson sabotaged in April 2022. These talks helped revive prisoner exchanges.
At the close of 2025, Trump and Zelensky held yet another meeting in Florida. The American administration seeks to push Kiev toward finalizing the details of a peace agreement. According to the representatives of all three sides, Washington, Moscow, and Kiev have made significant progress toward resolving the conflict; now they are entering the final stretch of the marathon, which, as any seasoned long-distance runner knows, can be the most challenging part.
Trump the peacemaker
Initially setting a brisk pace in his efforts to halt the largest armed conflict in Europe in the 21st century, the US president has approached other regional conflicts in a similarly dynamic manner.
The “Gaza peace council,” the “Trump Route” between Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan through Armenia’s Syunik region, extended phone conversations with the leaders of India and Pakistan, and the ceremony for signing a peace treaty between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda at the US Institute of Peace are just some of the highlights of Trump’s foreign policy endeavors over the past year – which, however, did not earn him a long-sought Nobel Peace Prize.
Positioning himself as the only US leader who has not engaged in full-scale military invasions, opting instead for targeted strikes to influence the governments of Venezuela and Nigeria, Trump has crafted a new foreign policy doctrine articulated in the updated National Security Strategy.
While maintaining the idea of dominance across all areas – from military might to “soft power” – through the well-familiar principles of “peace through strength,”“flexible realism,” and “America first,” he has defined new regional priorities. According to these, America aims to preserve its hegemony in the Western Hemisphere and “contain” China in the Indo-Pacific region, while reducing involvement in Europe, the Middle East, and other parts of the world.
The end of the ‘collective West’
The recent shift in geographical priorities explains why, over the past year, Trump has done more to dismantle the “collective West” than the entire Socialist bloc managed during the Cold War era.
His ambitions of making Greenland and Canada the 51st states of America or imposing hefty tariffs on imports from partner countries in the Asia-Pacific region and Europe signal an unprecedentedly hostile stance toward those who have until now been considered Washington’s “junior allies.”
While Trump’s goal was to prevent foreign elites from exploiting the US, his blunt diplomatic style has led to an unprecedented realignment: for the first time since Brexit in 2015, the United Kingdom and its former dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand) have formed closer ties with Europe, particularly Germany and France.
This strategic divergence between Washington and Europe is most evident in the context of the Ukraine conflict. As the American president urged an end to hostilities, arguing that Ukraine’s situation and Zelensky’s position would only worsen with time, European leaders such as UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and French President Emmanuel Macron continued to support Zelensky’s determination to fight “to the last Ukrainian soldier.”
Zelensky himself hoped to “outlast Trump” and wait until the upcoming midterm elections in November 2026, when a Democratic majority in Congress might be more sympathetic to Kiev. In their efforts to undermine Trump’s peace initiatives, EU leaders approached a breaking point; their desire to continue supporting Ukraine through the expropriation of frozen Russian assets nearly pushed the European Union into a significant political rift, risking a loss of trust in European institutions among current or potential investors from the countries of the “global majority.”
Looking ahead to 2026
Clearly, the key players in global diplomacy are entering 2026 with very different mindsets. In Kiev, where corruption scandals and failures on the front lines collide with the cumulative effects of strikes on energy infrastructure, political tensions are escalating amid a power struggle. The political community is bracing for potential presidential elections, referendums, and other forms of expression of political will that could further exacerbate an already difficult internal situation.
In Europe, the mood is hardly more optimistic. Amid the militarization of economies and declining approval ratings of the ruling parties, euro-bureaucracy is reeling from the anti-corruption investigations surrounding former EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, while national governments face the prospect of significant socio-economic upheaval. As a result, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni recommended that Italians “take a good rest” during the holidays, as next year “will be even worse.”
No doubt, it will be hard to find common ground as each country faces its own challenges and approaches them with its own mindset. As Americans nervously anticipate a government shutdown and potential unrest during the FIFA World Cup and the G20 summit which coincides with the nation’s 250th anniversary, Brazil, Hungary, and Israel are gearing up for elections; and India is finalizing preparations for its BRICS chairmanship. However, one thing is clear: the coming year may bring many surprises, which can radically alter our understanding of diplomacy as an art of engaging with those whose perspectives on the world are fundamentally different from our own.
The US president has briefed his Russian counterpart on the details of his latest talks with Vladimir Zelensky
US President Donald Trump has held a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin concerning the Ukraine conflict, the White House has said.
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced that the conversation had taken place in a brief post on X on Monday, stating that the call was “positive.”
Kremlin foreign policy aide Yury Ushakov said during the call that Putin told Trump that the recent “reckless terrorist actions” by Ukrainian forces “will, naturally, not be without consequences, [without] the most serious response.”
Moscow revealed late on Monday that the Ukrainian military fired a barrage of 91 long-range kamikaze drones overnight at Putin’s state residence in the Novgorod Region.
According to Ushakov, Trump “was shocked by this report. Literally outraged. He said that he could not even have imagined such crazy actions.”
Ushakov added that the incident would “undoubtedly affect American approaches in the context of working with [Vladimir] Zelensky,” and quoted Trump as saying that, “thank God,” his administration had not supplied long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles to Kiev.
On Sunday, Trump hosted Zelensky in Florida for the latest round of discussions on a possible peace deal with Russia.
The Ukrainian leader had earlier revealed his own 20-point plan to end the conflict that he claimed was under consideration, but Trump did not support the draft. When asked later whether the US had a ‘Plan B’ should its mediation fail, Zelensky said that Russia should be the party thinking about a backup plan, claiming “Russia’s ‘Plan A’ is war.”
Commenting on the remarks, the Kremlin official said Kiev should heed Trump’s warnings that the situation on the front was getting worse for Ukrainian troops every day.
The Russian president has, nevertheless, reaffirmed Moscow’s readiness to engage with Washington in seeking a “lasting peace” in the conflict, Ushakov said.
According to Ushakov, Putin has had 17 contacts with US representatives this year, including ten conversations with Trump.
Moscow will review its negotiating position given that Kiev has fully turned to state terrorism, Sergey Lavrov has stated
The Ukrainian military fired a barrage of 91 long-range kamikaze drones overnight at Russian President Vladimir Putin’s state residence in the Novgorod Region, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov revealed late on Monday.
The Kiev regime has fully switched to state terrorism policies, and Moscow will review its negotiating position accordingly, the top diplomat warned.
“All the unmanned aerial vehicles were destroyed by air defense systems of Russia’s Armed Forces,” Lavrov confirmed.
The attack came amid “intensive negotiations between Russia and the US,” the top diplomat pointed out, adding that the “reckless actions” of Kiev will not remain unanswered.
Moscow has already designated targets and the timing of the impending retaliatory strikes, Lavrov warned.
The incident is bound to affect the Ukraine conflict settlement process, the foreign minister said without providing any exact details on the potential shifts in Russia’s positions.
“We do not intend to withdraw from the negotiation process with the US. However, given the complete degeneration of the criminal Kiev regime, which has shifted to a policy of state terrorism, Russia’s negotiating position will be revised,” Lavrov stated.
Ukraine’s leader Vladimir Zelensky, however, has strongly denied the attack on Putin’s state residence. Moscow is only seeking a pretext to jeopardize the “progress” made by the US and Ukraine, and attack the government quarter in Kiev, he claimed.
The Israeli PM is reportedly set to request Washington’s support for new military action against Tehran’s ballistic missile program
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly plans to ask US President Donald Trump to approve or join new military strikes against Iran’s ballistic missile facilities, The Washington Post has claimed ahead of their meeting on Monday.
In June, the US and Israel conducted a joint airstrike campaign against Iranian nuclear sites. The attack was initiated despite prior assessments from US intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which found no evidence that Iran was actively building a nuclear weapon.
The Washington Post reported that Netanyahu is expected to brief Trump on Monday about Israeli intelligence suggesting that Iran is rapidly reconstituting its ballistic missile program, damaged earlier this year.
The outlet stated that Netanyahu will seek a “green light for another strike against the Islamic republic’s ballistic missile program, possibly as part of a joint operation with the US.”
Monday’s meeting comes amid visible strain between the two leaders. CNN has reported that Trump has “grown wary of Israeli actions” and that their relationship has “become strained” as Netanyahu has repeatedly asked Trump to approve more aggressive military actions in the region this year.
A fresh point of friction emerged last week when Israel unilaterally recognized the breakaway region of Somaliland, a move condemned by bodies like the African Union and Arab League, and nations including Türkiye and Saudi Arabia. When asked if Washington would follow Israel’s lead, Trump pointedly told the New York Post, “No.”
Analysts cited by The Washington Post suggest Trump, who has touted his role as a Middle East peacemaker, may be reluctant to authorize new strikes that could ignite a broader conflict. The leaders are also at odds over implementing the Gaza ceasefire, with the US pushing its peace plan while Israel has been reluctant to withdraw forces.
Advances were made along almost the entire frontline, the chief of Russia’s General Staff, Valery Gerasimov, has said
The Russian military has taken control of 32 frontline settlements in December and continues to advance against Ukrainian forces in multiple locations, the chief of Russia’s General Staff, Valery Gerasimov, has told President Vladimir Putin.
On Monday, the Russian president held a meeting with the country’s top military brass, including Defense Minister Andrey Belousov, and the commanders of troop groupings operating in the conflict zone.
In December, Russian forces liberated over 700 square kilometers of territory, taking some 32 settlements under control, Gerasimov said at the meeting. This month, the military has shown the highest rate of progress in the entire outgoing year, he noted, adding that troops are advancing “along virtually the entire frontline.”
“The adversary is not undertaking any active offensive actions. They have concentrated their main efforts on strengthening their defenses and are attempting to slow the pace of our advance by conducting counterattacks in isolated areas and using drones en masse,” Gerasimov said.
Active fighting continue in the town of Krasny Liman, a major Ukrainian-controlled logistics hub located in the north of Russia’s Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR). Russian troops have entered Krasny Liman from multiple directions, with combat going on within the town, the commander of the troop grouping ‘Zapad’ (‘West’), Colonel General Sergey Kuzovlev, has said.
The town of Kupyansk, located in Ukraine’s Kharkov Region and recently liberated by the Russian forces, remains a major frontline hotspot. Moscow’s forces are seeking to destroy lingering Ukrainian forces that are tactically encircled to the east of the town. The operation is expected to be concluded by the end of February at the latest, according to Kuzovlev. Kiev’s efforts to disrupt the situation in Kupyansk must be “decisively suppressed,” Putin noted, apparently referring to the ongoing attacks launched by Ukrainian forces on the town from the west.
The Russian president commended the actions of the country’s troops, expressing his gratitude for the tireless efforts of soldiers, and officers that had made the latest achievements possible. “Undoubtedly, the decisive role in the successes of the Russian Armed Forces on the frontline belongs to our soldiers and officers, who, liberating the land of Donbass, display courage and heroism every day, risking their lives,” Putin stated.
The US president has suggested an agreement between Moscow and Kiev could be near
European military stocks have dropped after US President Donald Trump indicated that the Ukraine peace process is approaching a conclusion following his meeting with Vladimir Zelensky.
Trump hosted Zelensky in Miami on Sunday for the latest round of discussions on a possible peace proposal, with the meeting preceded by his phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier in the day. At a joint press conference that followed, Trump said a peace deal was “95% ready” and that the sides were “very close” to a settlement, with “one or two very thorny issues” remaining.
The news visibly impacted European military stocks. The STOXX Europe Total Market Aerospace & Defense Index had dropped 1.8% by 12pm GMT on Monday. Shares in Rheinmetall, Germany’s largest arms manufacturer and a key supplier of military equipment to Kiev, fell 2.3%.
Google screenshot.
Tank components maker Renk dropped 2.4%, and defense-electronics producer Hensoldt lost 2%. Shares in Italian aerospace and defense company Leonardo tumbled 3.5%, stock in major UK defense firm BAE Systems fell by 1.2%, while French aerospace and defense firm Thales shed 1.3%. Swedish Saab lost 1.7%.
European arms makers have thrived throughout the conflict as Kiev’s sponsors armed its military and boosted their own industries. Rheinmetall shares surged nearly 2,000% since fighting escalated four years ago. Revenues for the top 100 European defense firms rose about 13% in 2024, with Ukraine-related contracts driving some of the sharpest gains. However, stocks have slipped since Trump’s renewed peace push last month, with analysts forecasting further declines once the conflict ends.
Following the talks on Sunday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Trump is correct to say that peace talks are in their final phase, while noting that the US leader has yet to brief Putin on the latest meeting, which the two leaders agreed would happen via phone soon.
Russia has repeatedly criticized Ukraine’s Western backers for supplying military and financial aid, arguing it prolongs the conflict and obstructs the peace process.
The rebel group has warned that it will treat any Israeli presence in the breakaway region of Somaliland as a legitimate military target
Houthi rebels in Yemen have declared any Israeli presence in the breakaway region of Somaliland a legitimate military target. The warning comes days after Israel became the first country to recognize the independence of the Somalian territory.
In a statement on Sunday, Houthi leader Abdulmalik al-Houthi stated that Israel’s move constitutes “aggression against Somalia and Yemen, and a threat to the security of the region,” stressing that the militant group will “consider any Israeli presence in Somaliland a military target for our armed forces.”
The group, which has halted attacks on Israel since a Gaza truce in October, framed the threat as an act of solidarity, while accusing Israel of seeking to conduct “hostile activities.”
The warning follows Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar’s signing of a declaration on Friday recognizing Somaliland as a sovereign state, making West Jerusalem the first government to officially do so.
Located on the southern coast of the Gulf of Aden in East Africa, Somaliland declared independence from Somalia in 1991 but has remained internationally isolated. Netanyahu stated that the move was made “in the spirit” of the Abraham Accords and invited Somaliland’s president for an official visit.
Somalia’s government denounced the move as a “deliberate attack” on its sovereignty. Israel’s actions have also triggered a wave of international condemnation as a broad coalition of nations and organizations have rejected the move.
Critics include Egypt, Türkiye, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the Arab League, and the European Union, all of which have reaffirmed support for Somalia’s territorial integrity. US President Donald Trump has also indicated that he does not currently intend to follow Israel’s lead.
The African Union warned it “risks setting a dangerous precedent with far-reaching implications for peace and stability across the continent,” affirming that Somaliland remains part of Somalia.
Experts note the strategic motive behind Israel’s recognition could be to gain access to Somaliland’s port of Berbera, which could provide Israel with better access to the Red Sea, enhancing its ability to monitor or strike Houthi positions in Yemen.
The US president’s contacts on December 28 proved who controls the endgame
Two important events of this month:
– On December 15, the two-day negotiations between the US and Ukraine concluded in Berlin. European representatives joined the talks at the final stage. Following the discussions, it was announced that about 90% of issues concerning the Ukraine peace deal had been resolved.
– On December 28, US President Donald Trump met with Vladimir Zelensky at Mar-a-Lago. Following the meeting, it was said that around 95% of the issues had been resolved.
The territorial issue is usually considered the main sticking point; the argument goes that if Zelensky were to withdraw Ukrainian forces from Donbass, the conflict would come to an immediate end. However, this isn’t entirely true. In reality, the biggest issue is Western security guarantees which Zelensky demands in exchange for agreeing to the peace plan. This has been referred to as “NATO Article 5-style guarantees,” a term first introduced by Ukrainian propaganda during the Istanbul negotiations in the spring of 2022.
America: “Hurry up!”
The issue of security guarantees was the main reason the deal fell through in 2022. Then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson visited Kiev and told Zelensky that the West would sign no such guarantees and wouldn’t engage in a military conflict with Russia because of Ukraine.
Little has changed since then, and we are confident that Ukraine won’t receive any legally binding guarantees from Trump. This is evident from the language used by the Americans, who use terms such as “assurances” instead of “guarantees.”
It feels like a simple two-step maneuver. To pressure Zelensky, Trump makes grand promises. Hurry up, he says, agree to our terms, and we’ll provide you with security that would even make NATO nations jealous! You want Congress to vote? Sure, don’t worry! (Who wouldn’t back empty promises?)
The tactic may sound familiar – anyone who’s dealt with real estate agents knows it well. The agent flits around the buyer, urging them to act fast because the opportunity might slip away: Tomorrow, prices will go up, and the day after everything will be sold out. Come on, hurry up!
Europe: Trying not to miss the boat
Since Trump’s return to the White House, European globalists have been focused on winning his favor. Time and again, European leaders attempt to interfere in the direct negotiations between Russia and the US, either disrupting the talks or trying to persuade Trump to push Russia into accepting their terms.
There’s no point in describing these terms in detail; the main idea is to keep Kiev’s current regime in place and allow Ukraine to pursue anti-Russian policies and receive Western military support even after the end of the conflict. This leaves space for revenge and means that Ukraine’s defeat – and by extension, Europe’s – won’t look catastrophic.
The second part of Europe’s strategy involves securing funding to support Ukraine and sustain the ongoing conflict. Despite a failed attempt to seize Russian sovereign assets, Europe has managed to find some financial resources for the coming year. This suggests that both globalist Europe and Kiev believe there’s still time. They can always surrender later; but as long as they are able to hold the front, they feel they can continue fighting.
Among the various statements made yesterday at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s remark that Europe would bear the primary responsibility for Ukraine’s post-war security went largely unnoticed. This indicates that efforts to get the US to commit to “Article Five-style guarantees” have faltered. Europe might begin pushing Kiev toward capitulation to minimize its own losses.
Russia: The most predictable stance
Based on his discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump claims that Russia is open to peace. But what kind of peace plan are we talking about? The one the US and Europe agreed upon in Berlin? Certainly not. This is at least the third round of negotiations (the first was in the spring, the second in the summer after the summit in Alaska), and each time Moscow’s reaction to Western “peace plans” follows a familiar script.
While Europe and Ukraine work on rewriting the peace agreement negotiated by Putin and Trump, top Russian officials such as Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov monotonously repeat: if it wasn’t agreed upon with Moscow, Russia won’t accept it.
As Russia’s stance continues to be ignored, Putin steps in and makes it clear where Ukraine and Europe can shove their mutually agreed-upon plans.
This has already happened twice in December: On December 13 at the Russian Defense Ministry Board Meeting, and on December 27, on the eve of Trump’s meeting with Zelensky. Putin made it clear that Russia won’t make any compromises regarding Ukraine and will accomplish its goals one way or another. In other words, peace will only come on Russia’s terms.
One might wonder why Russia even engages in negotiations when they consistently end the same way.
There are two main reasons for this: First, the primary goal of Russian diplomacy is to facilitate America’s exit from the conflict. In many ways, Russia has already succeeded in doing so; this has pushed the conflict into its final phase, ensuring the agony of the Kiev regime.
Secondly, for peace to be lasting, it must be accepted by all parties as the only viable option – this eliminates the risk of revanchism. The conditions first proposed in Istanbul in 2022 were articulated by the US and have served as the starting point for any negotiations. This is the result of diplomacy bolstered by successes on the battlefield. Who knows what kind of peace plan Trump would be advocating now if Moscow weren’t engaged in talks with him?
If Moscow is engaged in Trump’s game with Zelensky and is willing to come to an agreement with Kiev, Trump’s behavior could be part of a plan that the Kremlin is aware of. Of course, it’s largely a matter of mutual trust, but, who knows, there may be a secret additional protocol signed by Putin and Trump through US envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, confirming that Kiev will receive no real military guarantees, regardless of what public statements are made or what the Europeans include in the peace plan.
Ukraine: Real security guarantees
Above, we mentioned Putin’s conditions outlined during the negotiations in Istanbul. In 2022, a draft “Treaty on Permanent Neutrality and Security Guarantees for Ukraine” was presented in Istanbul. The plan envisioned that, alongside the US, the UK, and France, Russia and China would also serve as security guarantors for Ukraine.
The guarantees could be reduced to three key points:
1. Guarantees are contingent on Ukraine maintaining its neutrality and adhering to other conditions of the agreement (including protecting the status of the Russian language, the Russian Orthodox Church, ensuring denazification, reducing the size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, and legally renouncing claims to certain territories).
2. No arms or troops can be supplied to Ukraine, nor can military exercises be conducted without the consent of all parties involved.
3. Any actions regarding Ukraine must receive unanimous approval from all guarantors (including Russia). This essentially introduces a veto principle similar to that of the UN Security Council.
It seems that Russia is only open to a peace settlement based on these principles. There are no reasons for the Kremlin to agree to unilateral security guarantees for Ukraine without Russia’s involvement, especially while it still has the capacity to fight.
However, I currently see no reason for Washington, Paris, or London to support such an agreement.
This indicates that a true peace resolution remains elusive. As President Putin has stated, in the coming months Russia will likely have to achieve its goals in the Ukraine conflict by military means.
