Ongoing diplomatic push, security deadlock, and strategic manoeuvres

Photo Source: AFP
NIAS Course on Global Politics
National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS)
Indian Institute of Science Campus, Bangalore
For any further information or to subscribe to GP alerts send an email to subachandran@nias.res.in

CWA # 1878

CW Column: The War in Ukraine

Ongoing diplomatic push, security deadlock, and strategic manoeuvres

Lekshmi MK
18 December 2025

What happened?
On 17 December, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy described the US-backed peace proposal as “not perfect but workable.”

On 16 December, the EU voiced support for US-Ukraine negotiations, stressing Europe must play a central role in any settlement. Simultaneously, the EU adopted new sanctions targeting Russian oil, while the US signalled stricter enforcement of the Russian oil price cap.

On 15 December, ceasefire discussions progressed with Ukraine, the US, and European leaders. President Zelensky held extended meetings with US envoy Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and senior NATO officials. Zelensky reiterated that Ukraine would not withdraw from areas it controls unless Russia did the same.

On 14 December, Ukraine withdrew its long-standing NATO ambition to secure Western security guarantees. President Zelensky sought legally binding guarantees from the US, European partners, and allies such as Canada and Japan, including “Article 5”-style protections.

On 12 December, a revised 20-point framework was presented to Washington by Kyiv. Key sticking points remained Russian territorial demands, with the US offering a “free economic zone” in Ukraine-controlled Donbas as a possible compromise. Discussions also included potential Russian withdrawals in Kharkiv, Sumy, and Dnipropetrovsk, and freezing frontlines in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson.

What are the issues?
1. Security guarantees versus territorial integrity
In the ongoing peace efforts, Ukraine has shown flexibility by softening its long-standing demand to join NATO to secure immediate security guarantees. Instead, Kyiv is willing to consider alternative security arrangements backed by the US and European countries, provided they are strong and reliable. This reflects Ukraine’s priority of preventing future Russian attacks rather than pursuing alliance membership. However, this adjustment does not mean Ukraine is ready to give up its territorial integrity. While Ukraine may delay or reframe its NATO ambitions, it continues to insist that its sovereignty and control over its territory must be respected. Russia, meanwhile, expects Ukraine’s neutrality to be permanent and linked to territorial concessions, especially in occupied regions.

2. Territorial disputes over Donbas and the Zaporizhzhia nuclear facility
Russia insists that any peace deal must recognise its control over most of Donbas, while Ukraine refuses to accept territorial concessions, arguing that such terms would undermine its sovereignty. This gap has made it difficult to finalise ceasefire terms. Similarly, the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant has become a sensitive issue in the talks. Russia’s continued occupation of the plant raises concerns about nuclear safety and energy control, while Ukraine demands its return or international supervision. The unresolved status of the facility has increased mistrust and slowed negotiations.

3. A persistent trust deficit, with pressure tactics used as bargaining tools
Although talks are being revived, both sides continue to rely on pressure to strengthen their bargaining positions. Russia has used military escalation, territorial ultimatums, and attacks on infrastructure to press Ukraine into accepting its demands. Ukraine, in turn, has relied on continued resistance on the battlefield and diplomatic backing from Western partners to avoid making forced concessions. This mutual distrust has weakened the peace talks, as neither side believes the other will honour commitments made during negotiations. Past experiences, including broken ceasefires and unfulfilled agreements, have reinforced these fears. As a result, negotiations are treated not as steps toward compromise, but as tools to gain advantage.

4. US-led mediation and the constrained role of European leaders in the peace process
While this US leadership has been essential in keeping negotiations alive, European countries mainly provide advisory input, with limited influence over the structure and terms of the plan. European perspectives on key issues such as security guarantees, enforcement mechanisms, and long-term reconstruction are not fully reflected in the peace proposals. Moreover, the dominance of the US in the negotiation process is complicating efforts to reach a consensus.

What does it mean?
First, deadlock over security and territory. Ukraine seeks strong, credible security guarantees from Western allies to prevent future aggression. Meanwhile, it firmly insists on retaining control over its territory, including the Donbas region. However, Russia ties any potential agreement to Ukraine accepting neutrality and territorial concessions, especially in occupied areas. This clash makes compromise extremely difficult and explains why ceasefires and peace proposals repeatedly stall. The deadlock also underscores the limits of current diplomacy. It means that even if broader elements of a peace plan, such as reconstruction or ceasefire monitoring, are agreed upon, the core issues of sovereignty and security remain unresolved.

Second, an imbalance in negotiation influence. European priorities on security, enforcement mechanisms, and long-term reconstruction may not be fully incorporated into the plan, potentially affecting its regional legitimacy and sustainability. It also highlights a concentration of power with the US, which may influence both the pace and content of negotiations. This imbalance underscores the challenges of creating a balanced, durable, and accepted settlement.

About the author
Lekshmi MK is a postgraduat student at Madras Christian College, Chennai.

Bookmark

NIAS Conflict Weekly | The World This Week

January 2026 | CWA # 1932

Global Politics Team