The Long Shadow: Avoiding a ‘Bad Peace’ and Securing Sustainable Leverage

The most dangerous outcome for the security of the entire continent is not the continuation of the war, but the imposition of a settlement that merely rearranges the status quo in Moscow’s favor. Analysts are laser-focused on avoiding a “bad peace” that institutionalizes a strategic advantage for Russia.

Avoiding a Settlement That Institutionalizes Russian Strategic Advantage

A primary danger identified by analysts observing the current push for a deal is the possibility of concluding a “bad peace”—one that appears pragmatic on the surface but fundamentally reconfigures the European security landscape to Russia’s lasting advantage. Such an outcome, achieved by cementing current territorial gains and weakening Ukraine’s long-term defensive capacity through imposed military restrictions, is seen as setting a dangerous precedent that makes the entire continent more vulnerable to future coercion and intervention.

The original U.S.-brokered 28-point plan was heavily criticized because it reportedly sought to cap Ukraine’s armed forces and compel the nation to amend its constitution to commit to not joining NATO. This is the definition of institutionalizing strategic advantage—rewarding aggression with security limitations on the victim state.

Key Takeaway: A peace that leaves Ukraine militarily constrained but surrounded by a hostile, unpunished aggressor is not peace; it is a pause funded by Ukrainian sovereignty.

The Need for Sustainable Economic Strain to Force Moscow’s Shift

If battlefield realities are not shifting enough, the alternative leverage point remains the economic one. The belief persists among many observers that Russia’s ability to continue the war is constrained by internal economic pressures, including budget deficits and declining revenues linked to sanctions and war costs. This suggests that the most durable path to a genuine, equitable peace involves not merely diplomatic maneuvers but the maintenance or increase of external economic pressure.. Find out more about impact of attritional warfare on peace negotiations guide.

This pressure is designed to force Moscow’s strategic objectives to shift away from military victory toward compromise based on necessity rather than choice. The recent agreement within the EU to eventually cut off Russian gas imports by 2027, while perhaps not immediate enough to stop current advances, signals a long-term commitment to economic constraint.

Practical Tip: Western policy must remain coordinated. Any perceived wavering or a premature shift towards easing sanctions without reciprocal Russian military de-escalation is seen by many European actors as a path that actively aids Russia in winning the war on its preferred terms [see further analysis on European stability analysis].

The Diplomatic Tightrope: Next Steps and Unavoidable Choices

With talks recently stalling in Moscow, the path forward is obscured by mutual distrust and conflicting definitions of “victory.” The diplomatic maneuvers of late 2025 reveal a world holding its breath, awaiting a fundamental shift in political will.. Find out more about impact of attritional warfare on peace negotiations tips.

Assessing the Likelihood of a Breakthrough Following the Latest Round of Talks

Despite the high-level engagement between U.S. envoys and President Putin on December 3, 2025, the immediate prognosis remains one of deadlock. The Kremlin explicitly stated that **”no compromise option has been found”** following the five-hour meeting. While Putin’s aide noted that “some American proposals appear more or less acceptable,” the fundamental disagreements over territory and security remain the defining feature. Ukrainian and European officials have expressed doubt about Putin’s sincerity, urging him to “stop wasting the world’s time”.

This suggests that another significant shift in either military reality or political will is required before a final agreement can be formalized. The path forward seems to require further, intensive negotiation—both in the mediating capitals and between the two primary belligerents.

A Note on Incrementalism: While the major issues remain fraught, the fact that Ukrainian officials reported agreement on “core terms” following earlier engagements suggests that an eventual resolution might be pieced together through the painstaking negotiation of less politically explosive elements. This incremental approach, focusing on smaller, technical agreements, could potentially build momentum and trust necessary to tackle the central, intractable disputes of land and security later.. Find out more about impact of attritional warfare on peace negotiations strategies.

The Unavoidable Binary Choice Facing Western Powers

The current situation imposes a stark, binary choice on the primary international backers of Kyiv. This is the crossroads where material support meets diplomatic conviction. The choice is this: either marshall the necessary diplomatic and material strength to effectively constrain Russia’s maximalist war aims, thereby compelling a genuine shift in Moscow’s position, or risk abandoning Ukraine to an unfavorable outcome dictated by the current battlefield realities.

The path forward seems to require a unified stance: either provide enough to make continued military action an unsustainable choice for Moscow, or accept that the map will be redrawn by force.. Find out more about Impact of attritional warfare on peace negotiations overview.

The danger is that any perceived wavering by the West is immediately capitalized upon by the Kremlin. The theory of victory held by Putin is predicated on Russia outlasting the West and Ukraine in a war of attrition. Therefore, the commitment to providing current security guarantees, regardless of a temporary ceasefire, is paramount to maintaining Kyiv’s resolve.

Reconciling Concessions with National Dignity

For the Ukrainian nation, the central dilemma remains the agonizing choice between enduring the daily costs of war and potentially losing the very dignity and sovereignty they are fighting to preserve. This involves the acceptance of terms that demand relinquishing hard-won territory or compromising fundamental national aspirations, such as future integration with Western security structures. This internal struggle permeates the diplomatic narrative, as leaders attempt to justify any potential compromise as a necessary evil to preserve the state itself, navigating an incredibly narrow passage between immediate cessation and long-term national viability.

Conclusion: The Mandate Moving into 2026. Find out more about Peace process stance against war crimes amnesty definition guide.

The interplay between military reality and diplomatic aspiration on December 4, 2025, is characterized by high kinetic activity, domestic political upheaval in Kyiv, and diplomatic deadlock in Moscow. The current battlefield successes are fueling Russian intransigence, but the resilience of Ukrainian defenses and the political fallout from the anti-graft probe are creating counter-pressures.

Key Takeaways:

Call to Engagement: Where do you see the next decisive shift coming from—the front line, the Western aid pipeline, or the internal political dynamics of Kyiv? Share your analysis on the long-term European stability analysis in the comments below. The pressure to maintain resolve must be as strong as the pressure on the front lines.