On June 1, Ukraine executed ‘Operation Spiderweb’ drone strikes on Russian bases. They sent shock waves just ahead of the second round of peace talks in Istanbul and NATO’s Eastern Flank summit in Vilnius.
As the Russia-Ukraine war is in its fourth year, with mounting human and economic costs and rising global pressure for a diplomatic resolution, an endgame is in place. The revival of the Istanbul peace process and renewed engagement by key international players have reoriented attention towards diplomacy. Yet major questions persist: Will Ukraine’s audacious strikes shift the war’s trajectory? Can Ukraine endure the prolonged conflict? And can the main actors — Ukraine, Russia, the U.S., NATO, and the European Union — overcome entrenched divisions to forge a durable peace?
The return of diplomacy
As peace talks stalled under U.S. President Donald Trump, the Istanbul peace process was cautiously revived by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Two rounds of talks on May 16 and June 1 saw prisoner swaps and draft ceasefire terms exchanged. However, deep divisions remain, with both sides presenting largely irreconcilable conditions that hinder meaningful progress.
Russia’s ‘Special Military Operation’ could have ended in Istanbul negotiations in 2022, but a possible peace deal failed as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy walked away from it. Ukraine chose to continue fighting as it hoped for NATO membership and Western leaders pledged funding, weapons, and training.
U.S. President Donald Trump, prioritising his ‘America First’ and ‘Make America Great Again’ agenda, views the Ukraine war as a complex foreign policy challenge and seeks a swift end to it. His envoy, Keith Kellogg, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged it as a dangerous “proxy war between nuclear powers — the United States, helping Ukraine, and Russia”, and began Russia-Ukraine talks in February 2025. Mr. Trump sees no common ground or trust between Russia, Europe, and Ukraine, making an end to the Russia-NATO proxy war difficult. Acting as both participant and mediator, he believes a breakthrough is urgently needed.
Mr. Trump’s three months of shuttle diplomacy have sparked hope for peace. The peace framework addresses both sides’ concerns. Ukraine won’t join NATO, will gain security guarantees, accept a ceasefire, and territorial concessions. Sanctions on Russia will be lifted, and the present frontline will be frozen.
Ukraine-Europe peace terms include a permanent ceasefire, no limits on Ukraine’s military, and a U.S.-backed security guarantee akin to NATO’s Article 5. Sanctions would ease gradually after achieving lasting peace, while occupied territories remain unrecognised. European leaders’ ‘Coalition of the Willing’ meetings, led by the U.K. and France, seek a ‘reassurance force’ to monitor the peace accord’s implementation.
Russia demands addressing the war’s root causes, Ukrainian neutrality, NATO-membership ban, demilitarisation, denazification, and troop withdrawals. It also seeks ceasefire guarantees that Ukraine won’t regroup and receive Western munitions. If the West does not accept these terms, Mr. Putin warns of imposing terms militarily.
In February, Mr. Trump proposed to initiate denuclearisation talks with Russia and China, considering the Ukraine war’s potential for nuclear escalation and the expiry of the NEW START Treaty with Russia in 2026. Russian experts see this as a honey trap, reminiscent of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan’s trick with the Soviet Union’s President Mikhail Gorbachev. Kremlin remains sceptical of Western intentions and views Russia’s nuclear power as a necessary deterrent.
The broader Western posture is to continue supporting Ukraine until Russia is strategically defeated. In 2022, the European Parliament and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly designated Russia a ‘state sponsor of terrorism,’ complicating direct diplomatic engagement, while former U.S. President Joe Biden said ‘no’ to such a toxic ‘terrorist’ label for Russia.
Mr. Trump’s interest in ending the war is due to avoiding damage to America’s reputation. He wants to deal with China and engage in the West Asian and Indo-Pacific region. The Ukraine war tests Europe’s global autonomy, but its Russophobic stance hampers dialogue by framing Russia as an existential threat and exposing racism and militarisation.
The West is waging a proxy war in Ukraine and, as is the case with any proxy in history, Ukraine’s agency to decide the course of war is limited. Escalation risks are rising as Ukrainian drones allegedly targeted Mr. Putin’s convoy in Kursk on May 20, 2025. Earlier incidents included bridge bombings in Kursk, drone attacks near Moscow, and a threat to the Victory Day parade. In response, Russia has escalated its military campaign, aiming to create a ‘security buffer zone’ along the Ukraine border. Mr. Putin warned that rejecting current peace terms would make any future peace “more painful.”
A fragile endgame
Ukraine’s deep strikes into Russia, likely aided by Western intelligence, risk escalation. Under its nuclear doctrine, Russia may retaliate if sovereignty is threatened. Operation Spiderweb escalates Russia’s ‘Special Military Operation’ into a full-scale war. Though humiliated, Russia’s engagement in peace talks signals a real interest in ending the conflict. In such a scenario,
K.B. Usha, Associate Professor at the Centre for Russian and Central Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
Published – June 11, 2025 01:27 am IST
