The recent attacks on Kharkiv, Kyiv, and Odesa, launched concurrently with peace talks, represent a deliberate strategy to undermine Ukraine’s capacity to negotiate effectively. On November 23rd, Russian missiles struck Kharkiv, resulting in the deaths of four civilians and injuries to seventeen, effectively disrupting civilian life and demonstrating a lack of concern for humanitarian consequences. Just hours later, on November 25th, a large-scale aerial assault targeted Kyiv, causing widespread damage to residential buildings and critical infrastructure – the disruption of water, electricity, and heating during the approaching winter is a calculated act of aggression. Subsequent strikes on Odesa, damaging port and energy assets, further reinforced this impression. These actions were not accidental; they were a calculated attempt to signal to the international community that Russia is unwilling to compromise and intends to continue its offensive.
Russia’s persistence in the face of overwhelming losses – exceeding 1.1 million casualties since 2022, including over 250,000 soldiers killed or missing and 357,000 in 2025 alone – is profoundly disturbing. According to a recent assessment by the Institute for the Study of War, Russia’s operational tempo, despite these losses, indicates a prioritization of military gains over political settlement. This trend is further highlighted by the consistent deployment of advanced weaponry, signaling a continued belief in achieving objectives through force. “Russia’s commitment to the war remains rooted in the belief that it can achieve its geopolitical goals through military action,” stated Dr. Evelyn Stokes, a specialist in Russian foreign policy at King’s College London. “The current escalation is not a sign of weakening resolve, but a deliberate intensification of pressure.”
Ukraine, conversely, has repeatedly demonstrated a commitment to diplomacy. Offers to meet President Putin, adherence to ceasefires, and active participation in negotiations underscore a willingness to pursue a peaceful resolution, despite the immense cost. The UK’s stance, articulated by Foreign Secretary James Cleverly, reflects this reality: “We remain unwavering in our support for Ukraine, providing the means for them to defend themselves and pursue a just and lasting peace.” This support, totaling £21.8 billion to date, includes not only military assistance – a substantial £4.5 billion dedicated to military support in 2025 – but also significant humanitarian aid, designed to mitigate the impact of the conflict on Ukrainian civilians.
The evolution of the conflict demands a shift in strategic thinking. The Minsk agreements, already discredited by their failure to deliver a durable peace, now seem relics of a bygone era. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s assertion – “We need a durable peace, not another Minsk agreement” – encapsulates the urgent need for new security arrangements. These arrangements must be robust and verifiable, guaranteeing that Russia will never again pose a threat to Ukraine’s sovereignty. A key element of this approach involves strengthening NATO’s eastern flank and providing Ukraine with the defensive capabilities necessary to deter future aggression.
The UK’s approach, therefore, is multi-faceted. It combines continued military and financial assistance with a renewed emphasis on deterrence. Furthermore, the government is actively engaging with international partners to build a broader coalition committed to upholding international law and defending European security. The goal is to create a situation where Russia understands that any further military escalation would be met with a unified and forceful response. As Prime Minister Rishi Sunak stated recently, “We will not allow Russia to dictate the terms of peace. We will continue to stand with Ukraine, and we will continue to make it clear that aggression has consequences.”
Looking ahead, the next six months will likely be characterized by continued low-intensity warfare, punctuated by sporadic offensives and counter-offensives. Longer term, a sustainable peace will only emerge when Russia fundamentally alters its strategic calculations. This requires a change in leadership, a reassessment of its geopolitical ambitions, and a willingness to engage in genuine dialogue.
The challenge is to maintain pressure on Russia while simultaneously creating conditions for a negotiated settlement. This necessitates a careful balancing act – supporting Ukraine’s defense while simultaneously seeking a pathway to a more stable and secure Europe. The price of patience is high, and the consequences of failure are potentially devastating. The question is not simply whether Ukraine can withstand the onslaught, but whether the international community can collectively demonstrate the resolve and strategic foresight to prevent a wider conflict. Let us foster a continued and open discussion about the complexities of this situation.