GLOBAL ISSUE

As we approach the end of 2024 and the beginning of 2025, speculation and even claims about the imminent conclusion of the Russian-Ukrainian war have proliferated. Will the new year bring peace to Eastern Europe? Or will the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, perceived as a battleground for a broader global confrontation between Russia and the US-led West, continue to undermine the foundations of the world order? This conflict is accompanied by increasing civilian casualties and poses a threat of nuclear warfare to all of humanity.

Opposing Positions

The war, which has endured for nearly three years, has led to an estimated one million deaths—most of whom are civilians, primarily Ukrainians, in addition to servicemen from both sides. Currently, on the front lines, Russia aims to consolidate its grip on the territories it has occupied in Ukraine while continuing operations to expand its control over Donbas. Ukraine is resisting the advance of Russian forces while also attempting to maintain its presence in the occupied areas of Russia's Kursk region.

The intensity of hostilities has escalated in recent months due to Western powers granting Ukraine permission to conduct long-range strikes on Russian territory, along with Moscow's deployment of the new Oreshnik medium-range ballistic missile. The "external" context of the war is further complicated by reports from Ukraine and its Western allies regarding the involvement of North Korean soldiers fighting alongside the Russian army. In such a challenging environment for restoring peace, discussions about potential negotiations between Moscow and Kiev have emerged.

But what conditions do both parties set for initiating negotiations?

Russian President Vladimir Putin articulated his demands for commencing peace talks as early as last summer. These conditions include, foremost, the complete withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson regions—in essence, the Ukrainian territories "incorporated" by Russia. Additionally, Moscow insists that all annexed Ukrainian territories—including Crimea and Sevastopol—be recognized internationally as Russian territories and that Ukraine formally renounce its aspirations to join NATO.

Kiev’s position stands in stark contrast, as reflected in its official refusal to negotiate with Russia until there is full restoration of Ukraine's territorial integrity. Nonetheless, Ukrainian President Zelensky proposed his own terms for initiating negotiations last autumn under what he termed a "victory plan." Alongside already realized conditions such as lifting restrictions on strikes deep into Russian territory, he requests a formal invitation for Ukraine to join NATO, enhanced air defence support from allies—including a "comprehensive non-nuclear strategic deterrence package" against the Russian threat—and intensified sanctions against Russia. Essentially, Kiev’s proposals are directed towards the West, assuming that their endorsement will compel Russia to engage in negotiations without imposing maximalist demands.

According to the "victory plan," Ukraine is unwilling to relinquish any territories or abandon its goal of joining NATO. Although Kiev’s rhetoric in recent months suggests that Ukrainian authorities have accepted it may not be feasible to regain all territories lost since 1991 through military means, they remain open to discussing a formal yet non-legal renunciation of military reclamation in exchange for NATO membership and genuine security guarantees from the West for Ukraine.

Despite the starkly opposing stances of Moscow and Kiev—which seem to eliminate any chance for peace as the third year of conflict approaches closure—there exists a factor that may favour starting negotiations: neither side has been able to achieve significant advancements on the battlefield. Furthermore, a significant external stimulus for negotiations may arise from US. President-elect Donald Trump, who will take office following his scheduled inauguration on January 20.

What Will Trump Propose?

During his election campaign, Trump asserted that he could resolve the war in Ukraine within 24 hours upon returning to the White House. His criticism of the Joe Biden administration for providing substantial financial and military support to Ukraine—including allowing strikes with U.S.-supplied weapons deep into Russia—has led to speculation that he would reduce aid to Kiev and pressure it into negotiations with Moscow after resuming office.

However, neither during his campaign nor after his electoral victory has Trump presented a concrete plan for resolving the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Nevertheless, Reuters reported earlier this summer on a plan formulated by Trump's advisers during his first term: Keith Kellogg and Fred Fleitz. This plan envisions a ceasefire with both parties halting hostilities at the current front line before entering peace talks. In this scenario, Ukraine would continue receiving military support if it agreed to ceasefire conditions and negotiations. Conversely, Russia would be warned that refusal to accept the proposed ceasefire would lead to increased arms deliveries to Ukraine from the United States. In exchange for Moscow's consent to negotiations, Washington promised to postpone deliberations concerning Ukraine's admission into NATO for an extended period and maintain de facto control over occupied Ukrainian territories by Russia.

Following Trump's electoral victory, the Wall Street Journal reported that his team is exploring multiple scenarios for concluding the Russian-Ukrainian war. However, these scenarios consistently involve abandoning Biden's principle of supporting Ukraine "for as long as it takes," freezing front lines at current positions, and postponing NATO acceptance for Ukraine for 20 years.

Trump's nominee for special envoy for Russia and Ukraine, retired General Keith Kellogg—one of the co-authors of this plan—stated that while no swift agreement could be anticipated, a resolution might be achieved within the first 100 days of Trump's presidency.

Amid such announcements and growing fatigue from war—not only among direct participants but also among Europe’s allies who fear abandonment by the incoming U.S. president—predictions by global media indicate potential negotiations in 2025.

Predictions and Illusions

In late November last year, British magazine The Economist published a forecast stating that pressure on Ukraine—including a reduction in Western military assistance—would significantly heighten in 2025 in an effort to push it towards peace talks. In return for compliance, Ukraine would receive security guarantees but not NATO membership. The publication anticipates that "hostilities may abruptly subside, up to a ceasefire," leading to negotiations and potentially resulting in a "semi-frozen conflict."

In mid-December, The New York Times predicted that the war in Ukraine would conclude in 2025, which it termed "the year of negotiations." The rationale was again linked to decreasing Western military aid; it suggested that the new U.S. administration would be less inclined to support Kiev at previous levels while European nations would be unable to shoulder the burden entirely. According to this newspaper's perspective, Ukraine would need to accept new territorial realities without expecting an invitation to NATO for now.

Another influential U.S. publication, The Washington Post, noted at the end of December that President Zelensky appeared increasingly willing to entertain negotiations—a stark contrast to his previous categorical refusals. Observers attributed this shift to deteriorating conditions for Ukrainian armed forces at the front lines coupled with statements from U.S. President-elect Trump.

German publication Bild cited a government analysis suggesting that Russia desires an early peace due to severe economic deterioration resulting from Western sanctions.

Finally, on New Year's Eve, British Financial Times asserted that Russia and Ukraine would soon reach a peace agreement whereby Kiev would concede de facto control over lost territories in exchange for security guarantees but not NATO membership.

Clearly, such forecasts are based heavily on direct communications and recent statements from involved parties. For instance, President Zelensky confirmed discussions about halting hostilities during a trilateral meeting with Trump and French leader Emmanuel Macron in Paris on December 7. During this meeting with German Chancellor candidate Friedrich Merz, Zelensky stressed: "But I warned both Presidents Macron and Trump: you will see that Putin does not want this war to end; he must be forced."

At the same time, Trump has repeatedly indicated preparations for a meeting with Putin. According to Trump, Putin "wants to meet, and we are in the process of organizing it" as "we need to end this war."

But can we anticipate any tangible outcomes from expected negotiations soon—particularly from a potential Trump-Putin meeting?

During a press conference on December 19, President Putin emphasized that Moscow is open to talks with Kiev "without preconditions" but "based on realities on the ground." He specifically noted that advancements by Russian forces "are occurring along the entire front line." In essence, Russia continues to associate any potential dialogue with recognition of its territorial gains during this conflict with Ukraine.

Russia's permanent representative to the United Nations, Vasily Nebenzya, made a noteworthy statement regarding signals from Trump's team about ending the war in Ukraine; he referred to them as "uninteresting," "unformed," and incomprehensible. Based on such assessments, Putin's readiness to meet with Trump—if it indeed takes place—may serve primarily as an opportunity for him to present his position rather than an acceptance of Trump's proposals since those do not eliminate the prospect of restoring Ukraine's territorial integrity or its future admission into NATO—both points Russia vehemently opposes.

Regarding Ukraine's stance, President Zelensky expressed openness during his New Year's address to pursue peaceful negotiations aimed at concluding hostilities; however, he tied this process to the willingness of the new American president to "bring peace and put an end to Putin's aggression," understanding that achieving this is impossible without addressing Putin's actions first. Zelensky stressed that "a just peace cannot come on the principle of 'let's start from scratch' because we are not at 0:0; we are at thousands—thousands of Ukrainians whose lives were stolen by Russia." Following this sentiment, he asserted that reliable and concrete security guarantees were essential for Ukraine and emphasized that it "cannot exist in a state of frozen conflict."

Zelensky reiterated this perspective in his initial interviews of 2025: "Ukraine needs security guarantees to stop the war—not just on paper—but which should consist of real military deterrence against Russia." At the same time, he reiterated his readiness to "begin discussions with him about ways to achieve peace" as soon as Trump assumes office as U.S. president.

Overall, the Ukrainian side emphasizes security guarantees as paramount. Mikhail Podolyak—an adviser in Zelensky's office—made it clear that without such assurances, discussions about negotiations are merely "an illusion." Previous agreements concerning Ukraine's security—including the 1994 Budapest Memorandum and 2014-2015 Minsk agreements—have proven ineffective because they do not carry an additional threat of military deterrence; thus "Russia must understand that should it initiate aggression again, it will face significant retaliation." Simultaneously, Kiev views obtaining security guarantees from the United States as an irreplaceable prerequisite for ending hostilities.

This assertion directly addresses speculation regarding deploying European peacekeepers within Ukrainian territory—a notion suggested by French President Macron proposing European troops stationed in Ukraine until its NATO accession. Similar initiatives are associated with the Joint Expeditionary Force formed by Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Estonia, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway) under UK leadership. However, Kiev insists on direct U.S. military involvement regarding security guarantees for Ukraine.

Conversely, Russia categorically rejects any prospect of Western troop deployments on Ukrainian soil—a position further underscoring complexities surrounding potential peace between Russia and Ukraine.

Ultimately, it appears questions regarding a settlement between Russia and Ukraine may indeed hinge on practical actions taken by America’s new president rather than mere hypotheticals. How Trump conducts himself is likely to be a key factor influencing future developments—a reality acknowledged by both Russia and Ukraine from distinct perspectives.