What are the prospects for peace in Ukraine in 2025?

This year has seen the continuation of the Ukraine war. Russia now holds a confirmed battlefield advantage near Velyka Novosilka and Vuhledar. The front line in Donetsk Oblast is becoming more fluid, as advances have been made that were larger and quicker in comparison to 2023. Another distinctive aspect of 2024 was the August Kursk offensive, in which the armed forces of Ukraine launched an incursion onto Russian soil. By October, Russian forces had retaken almost half of the territory occupied by Ukraine. This piece offers a reflection on 2024’s key events, new diplomatic trends and dynamics and what to expect in the coming year. Most importantly, is peace plausible in 2025?

At the international level, there is understanding of the importance of establishing peace as soon as possible. For example, in November, the G20 leaders, in their final declaration at their Rio de Janeiro summit, sought to explore “all relevant and constructive initiatives that support a comprehensive, just and durable peace,” while condemning the “threat or use of force to seek territorial acquisition.” Despite this, 2024 has been strongly marked by the continuation of military, financial and political support to both parties by their respective allies and partners.

Ukraine has been financially and militarily supported by Europe and the US. According to the Germany-based Kiel Institute, Europe spent $125 billion and the US $90 billion on supporting Ukraine between the start of the war in 2022 and the beginning of November 2024. The UK has emerged as one of the leading aid donors over the past two years and has said it will provide £3 billion ($3.8 billion) of military support every year for “as long as it takes.”

Meanwhile, Russia has been supported politically and militarily by its own allies. But one of the distinctive features of the year has been the role of new players, especially North Korea. During a meeting of G7 foreign ministers last week, the group denounced Russia’s “irresponsible and threatening nuclear rhetoric” and considered North Korea’s support of Moscow to be a dangerous development. Earlier, North Korea and Russia had ratified their Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. South Korea has also accused the North of providing air defense missiles, in addition to sending 10,000 troops to the Kursk region.

One of the distinctive features of this year has been the role of new players in the conflict, especially North Korea

Dr. Diana Galeeva

Other countries, such as the UAE, have maintained their neutral political stance and have mediated deals, such as the September exchange of 103 prisoners of war from each side.

Another development has been the clear visibility of a weapons race between the two sides, culminating in Russia’s deployment of the Oreshnik hypersonic intermediate-range missile in an assault on Dnipro. Moscow explained that it was in response to Kyiv’s usage of US and UK-made or supplied missiles to target Russian territory. Moscow has not resorted to its nuclear capabilities, but it has developed “frightening” weapons. As both sides seek advantages in terms of speed, distance and impact, the escalation of heavy and advanced weaponry is likely to continue.

Given all of these factors, is there any hope for the future and a peace deal in 2025? Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has attempted to offer a “peace formula” — a marketable brand name for a list of demands that involve Russia’s withdrawal from Ukraine’s entire territory. It was outlined during the Switzerland summit in June. However, these efforts have not been successful, as most of the major Global South countries did not sign the communique, citing the absence of Russia or Israel’s presence in the discussions as problematic.

Earlier suggestions also failed to gain traction, such as the one made by Turkiye in May, when President Recep Tayyip Erdogan offered to host peace talks, or when Chinese Premier Wang Yi wished to be a “force for peace” to end the two-year-old Ukraine war.

The rhetoric on both sides remains inflammatory, with ‘victory’ appearing to be the key term, rather than ‘peace’

Dr. Diana Galeeva

Following this failure, Zelensky in October again presented his “victory plan” to end the war. It includes requests for specific weapons and an “unconditional” invitation to join NATO immediately. He kicked off a tour to Europe to strengthen armed and financial support for his country by meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and new NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. At a G7 meeting in November, leaders restated their support for Ukraine “for as long as it takes,” as Zelensky hoped to end the Ukraine war in 2025 through “diplomatic means.” The Kremlin responded that Zelensky’s plan might lead to direct conflict between NATO and Russia.

Many observers are anxiously waiting on Donald Trump’s official return to the Oval Office in January, as he has promised to end the war “within 24 hours.” So far, though, no details or clear plan have been offered. It was reported last month that Russian President Vladimir Putin was open to discussing a ceasefire deal with Trump, but he ruled out making any key territorial concessions and insisted that Ukraine abandon its ambitions to join NATO.

All these seemingly irreconcilable demands and concerns have ensured there has been no resolution to the conflict in 2024; and it has even escalated in terms of weaponry and the involvement of new players. The rhetoric on both sides remains inflammatory, with “victory” appearing to be the key term, rather than “peace.” Even if Trump significantly weakens US support for Ukraine, European leaders are highly likely to maintain their strong stance. Meanwhile, Russia is likely to continue developing strategic relationships with its current allies (and potentially even more players), especially as far as maintaining a military deterrence goes.

It is hard to see a swift or simple conclusion, at least until a change of leadership among any of the main participants provokes a change of vision. Next year may be a year of peace-building — and there will be much effort and hope expended in achieving this — but it seems likely that the crisis will at first continue to tighten until some kind of breaking point is reached.

• Dr. Diana Galeeva is an academic visitor to Oxford University. X: @Dr_GaleevaDiana