Russia–Ukraine War and the Fragility of Diplomacy
The Russia–Ukraine war, since the full‑scale invasion in February 2022, remains one of the most consequential geopolitical crises of the early 21st century. As combat endures into late 2025, recent developments illustrate a deeply fragile and increasingly complex diplomatic environment, shaped by mounting Russian territorial advances, internal governance scandals in Ukraine, and growing foreign‑aid fatigue.
Russian Military Pressure and the Risk of Wider Involvement
According to recent assessments by Russia Matters Russian forces have regained momentum in late 2025: in the four‑week period ending 18th November 2025, gained 169 square miles of Ukrainian territory, an increase over the 128 square miles it gained over the previous four-week period (Sept. 23rd–Oct. 21st, 2025) (Russia Matters, 2025). This resurgence suggests a broader Russian strategy of incremental territorial gains rather than a single decisive offensive, and is part of a wider increase in battles from the beginning of 2025, as shown in figure 1 according to ACLED data (ACLED, 2025).
Specifically, Russia is advancing around key logistics hubs, for example, reportedly tightening its grip on the transportation hub of Pokrovsk, which could be militarily and symbolically important, although the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) has not observed evidence of a full Russian takeover (Institute for the Study of War, 2025). Amid growing military pressure, diplomatic efforts have intensified. According to recent reporting, behind‑the‑scenes negotiations are ongoing, including U.S.-led proposals aiming to broker a ceasefire or settlement. However, key stumbling blocks remain highly contentious and has led to Putin allegedly rejecting Trump’s latest peace deal, leading to Putin being accused of “wasting the world’s time” by Ukrainian foreign minister Andrii Sybiha (Sky News, 2025), but the Kremlin has denied this. A large part of the issue surrounds territorial issues, which Russia see as central to any sort of resolution to the crisis according to Yuri Ushakov, Russia’s foreign policy adviser (Sky News, 2025).
Adding further fuel to the fire, NATO officials have recently suggested that pre-emptive strikes against Russia could be considered a form of defensive action, sparking sharp warnings from Moscow (The Telegraph, 2025). The alliance’s military leadership argues that simply reacting to Russia’s escalating hybrid warfare, cyberattacks, sabotage, and destabilisation, may no longer be sufficient, and a more proactive stance could deter future aggression. Russia, however, has condemned these remarks as dangerously provocative, accusing NATO of undermining any form of Ukraine peace talks and pushing Europe closer to confrontation (The Telegraph, 2025).
Corruption, Governance, and the Erosion of Legitimacy
In November 2025, Ukraine’s top peace‑negotiation official, Andriy Yermak, chief of staff to Volodymyr Zelenskyy, resigned following a raid by the country’s anti‑corruption agencies (Reuters, 2025). The raid is part of a broader scandal, known as Operation Midas, which centres on alleged kickbacks and embezzlement of more than US$100 million in contracts tied to the state nuclear‑energy operator and other state‑controlled industries (Reuters, 2025).
The fallout has been immediate and substantial. Ministers have resigned, senior advisers dismissed, and Western allies have expressed growing concern about transparency and accountability, including the European Union who have told Zelensky that he must crack down on graft (AP News, 2025).
It can be argued that the scandal undermines not just domestic support, but also foreign Trust. Ukraine’s legitimacy at home and abroad, vital to sustaining morale, securing Western assistance, and negotiating international agreements, may be jeopardised if corruption remains unaddressed. Without swift reforms and credible anti‑corruption measures, Kyiv’s negotiating position is likely to weaken just as pressure from the front intensifies.
Strategic Risk: Diplomacy Fragile, Alliances Uncertain
Thus, the current moment is defined by a fragile equilibrium. On one side, Russia’s renewed territorial pressure and battlefield gains threaten to reshape the map; on the other, Ukraine’s leadership is scrambling diplomatically, under mounting internal and external Pressure, to avert further losses. However, the internal legitimacy crisis, stemming from the corruption scandal, threatens to erode Ukraine’s selling point to allies: that it represents a democratic, reform‑minded partner worthy of sustained support.
For NATO and Western powers, this raises difficult decisions. The moral and strategic imperative to support Ukraine and deter further Russian aggression remains strong. Yet, continuing to pour resources into a government facing serious corruption allegations may provoke domestic and international backlash, particularly if aid is perceived to be fuelling graft rather than defence or reconstruction.
If diplomacy proceeds under the current conditions, any agreement, especially one involving territorial concessions, risks coming under a cloud of mistrust. On the other hand, if diplomacy breaks down and hostilities continue, the prospect of NATO becoming more directly involved cannot be discounted, with unpredictable implications for European and global security.
Conclusion — A War That Is Now as Much Political as Military
The war in Ukraine can no longer be understood simply as a military conflict. It has evolved into a deeply political struggle, both domestically and internationally. Russian advances continue to reshape the battlefield; diplomatic efforts are urgent yet fragile; and internal political corruption crises threaten to undermine the very foundations of governance, legitimacy, and foreign support.
In this context, the next few months are pivotal. If Ukraine can restore credibility, by demonstrating transparent governance, holding corrupt actors to account, and reassuring allies that aid is used responsibly, it may yet preserve both domestic cohesion and international support. But if the scandal deepens or foreign backers lose confidence, support may wane at precisely the moment Kyiv can least afford it.
Bibliography
- ACLED.(2025). “Ukraine Conflict Monitor”. ACLED. Updated 28th November, 2025. Available at: Ukraine Conflict Monitor: Russia-Ukraine war map | ACLED
- AP News. (2025). “Zelenskyy’s chief of staff resigns after anti-corruption investigators search home”. AP News. Published 28th November, 2025. Available at: Zelenskyy’s chief of staff resigns | AP News
- Institute for the Study of War (ISW). (2025). “Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 2, 2025”. Institute for the Study of War (ISW). Published 2nd December, 2025. Available at: Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, Dec. 2, 2025 | ISW
- Reuters. (2025). “Ukraine’s top peace negotiator quits after raid by anti-graft police”. Reuters. Published 28th November, 2025. Available at: Ukraine’s top peace negotiator quits after raid by anti-graft police | Reuters
- Russia Matters. (2025). “The Russia-Ukraine War Report Card, Nov. 19, 2025”. Published 19th November, 2025. Available at: The Russia-Ukraine War Report Card, Nov. 19, 2025 | Russia Matters
- Sky News. (2025). “Ukraine war: Putin accused of ‘wasting the world’s time’ after rejecting Trump peace deal”. Sky News. Published 3rd December, 2025. Available at: Ukraine war: Putin accused of ‘wasting the world’s time’ after rejecting Trump peace deal | World News | Sky News
- The Telegraph. (2025). “Nato: Pre-emptive strikes on Russia could be considered defensive action”. The Telegraph. Published 1st December, 2025. Available at: Ukraine-Russia war: Pre-emptive Nato strikes could be considered defensive
