DEAR READER,

As we promised last week, we are returning to a story that managed to ruffle quite a few feathers across Europe and in Ukraine. We are talking about the peace negotiations for Ukraine — and the uncomfortable sense that the conversation is shifting to a stage where the major powers decide what Ukraine’s future should look like. Adam Reichardt breaks down what’s actually happening and what it means for the region.

One more thing: we are about to publish this year’s final issue of New Eastern Europe. If you want to receive it before 2025 wraps up, now is the moment — you can sign up here.

Enjoy reading this week’s “brief”!

— Giorgi Beroshvili, Editor

Last week, the news cycle around Russia’s invasion of Ukraine went into overdrive. After the apparent 28-point peace plan was leaked, near-panic swept through Kyiv and across European capitals. The uproar ultimately forced talks in Geneva between the United States and Ukraine, aimed at calming fears that Washington was considering a de facto surrender plan for Kyiv. Before those talks, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy warned Ukrainians that the country faced an impossible choice: risk losing the United States as a close partner or compromise its dignity.

The week escalated further when Bloomberg published transcripts of private phone conversations between Donald Trump’s lead negotiator, Steve Witkoff, and Vladimir Putin’s adviser, Yuri Ushakov. In essence, Witkoff appeared to coach the Russians on how Putin should approach Trump in forthcoming negotiations, presumably following the proposed Alaska summit. The revelations confirmed what many observers had long suspected: Witkoff is far closer to the Russian side than publicly acknowledged.

Then came Putin’s own intervention. He suggested that the “Trump plan” could serve as the basis for a stable peace agreement, but only if “Ukrainian troops withdraw from the territories they occupy”. The statement was a cynical and disturbing inversion of reality, underscoring that the Kremlin has no intention of abandoning its maximalist demands, especially now that it believes it holds the advantage on the battlefield and in the skies.

As the weekend approached, Kyiv was rocked yet again. This time it was the dismissal of Andriy Yermak, the powerful head of the presidential administration. Yermak, often described as Zelenskyy’s informal “vice president,” has been one of his closest confidants and the lead negotiator with Washington. But on Friday, he was implicated in a corruption scandal that erupted two weeks ago, tying several officials close to the president to allegations of money laundering and large kickbacks. It is still too early to tell what impact Yermak’s departure will have on the president, the war and the peace negotiations, but it is certain the table has been flipped over.

All the while, ordinary Ukrainians continue to endure relentless bombardment. This past weekend saw yet another wave of massive strikes, particularly in Kyiv. Reports from the Donbas front are increasingly grim for Ukraine as well, despite staggering Russian losses.

As of this morning, it is difficult to say where any of this leads. A Ukrainian negotiating delegation, including some new faces, was reportedly in Florida this weekend to meet US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Witkoff, and others. Witkoff, joined by Jared Kushner, is expected to travel to Moscow later this week to present an updated proposal that Ukraine will, reportedly, have endorsed.

Once again, we are left anxiously waiting: Which points from the original 28-point plan will survive? Which will be modified or added? There is little reason to expect the Kremlin will accept any proposal that does not effectively neutralize Ukraine, stripping it of territory, military capacity, and its NATO aspirations. Putin’s strategy appears less about reaching a negotiated peace and more about buying time and shaping political conditions to Russia’s advantage.

If the Kremlin rejects the current proposal, Ukraine – and Europe more broadly – will be faced with an excruciating dilemma. Kyiv could theoretically concede to Russia’s territorial demands, though this remains highly unlikely. Thus, the alternative is to maintain the status quo: a grinding war in which Ukraine’s resources are fading, its manpower is exhausted, and its morale is wavering. The US is no longer providing critical defensive supplies, while Europe is preoccupied with rearming itself (no small task).

Crucially, the status quo favours Russia. Moscow enjoys tacit Chinese support and has found numerous ways to circumvent sanctions. And while Ukraine’s strikes on Russian refineries and strategic infrastructure are admirable, it is unclear whether they meaningfully could shift the Kremlin’s calculations.

Nevertheless, a prolonged stalemate will also expose Europe’s chronic deficit in courage and leadership. If the US-led process collapses and Europe fails to step up with decisive support for Kyiv, the war will inch closer to the European Union – bringing refugees, hybrid warfare, cyberattacks, sabotage, and even drones. Everything possible must be done now to avoid such an outcome.

— Adam Reichardt, Editor in Chief at New Eastern Europe