Roundtable Blog
“Global Developments since January 2025 and Their Implications for Peace in Ukraine”
Editor’s Note:
This post marks a new kind of contribution to the Lawyering Justice blog. Rather than a traditional co-authored piece, it presents a curated set of expert reflections from members of PILPG’s Ukraine Peace Negotiations Working Group. Drawing on the diverse expertise of our Peace Fellows, this roundtable-style blog explores the most consequential global developments since January 2025 and assesses how these changes may shape Ukraine’s prospects for a just and durable peace.
Published under the Lawyering Justice banner, this post reflects our commitment not only to chronicling the legal and diplomatic dimensions of active conflicts, but also to fostering strategic foresight and connecting lawyering to policy planning. We hope this format will serve as a model for future collaborative work on peace and justice.
***
As Ukraine continues its struggle against Russia’s war of aggression, the strategic landscape surrounding the conflict is shifting at an accelerating pace. Since January 2025, a series of global developments—ranging from advances in military technology to evolving political alignments—have created new opportunities and risks for Ukraine’s pursuit of a just and durable peace. Recognizing the need to reassess Ukraine’s negotiation posture and peace architecture in light of these emerging dynamics, the Public International Law & Policy Group (PILPG) has launched a new initiative under its Ukraine Peace Negotiations Working Group.
This Roundtable Blog is the product of that initiative. Drawing on the expertise of PILPG Peace Fellows, the document presents a set of short, focused analyses that highlight the most consequential global developments of the past six months and their implications for Ukraine’s prospects for peace. Contributors were asked “What is the most significant global development since January 2025 (in your field or area of expertise) that will shape the prospects for peace in Ukraine - and why?” The result is a mosaic of insights that connect Ukraine’s peace strategy with broader global trends—whether technological, legal, geopolitical, or economic.
The purpose of this public-facing Roundtable Blog is threefold: to inform Ukrainian policymakers and Peace Formula stakeholders of key international variables; to connect Ukraine-focused expertise with broader global strategic thinking; and to provide forward-looking, analytically grounded perspectives that can shape Ukraine’s evolving negotiation strategy.
Darrell Guthrie, Major General (Ret.) U.S. Army Reserve
The most consequential development is the recently demonstrated effectiveness of first-person video drones and special operations. Ukraine’s Operation Spiderweb and Israel’s Operation Rising Lion utilized first-person video drones and special operations forces to destroy critical assets and eliminate key leadership. The psychological impact of a simultaneous attack on multiple targets at great distances against previously invulnerable targets was significant and could positively shape the prospects for peace in the second half of 2025.
Prior to these strikes, first-person video drone footage of armored vehicles or trench line attacks was ubiquitous and commonplace on social media. But those types of attacks were distant and those targeted were expendable – i.e., they reflected the tactical cost of war. Operation Spiderweb, however, created a sense of strategic vulnerability, as 20% of Russia’s nuclear-capable bomber fleet was damaged or destroyed by attacking four bases simultaneously across Russia, to include Balaya Air Base deep in Siberia and Olenya Air Base in far northern Russia near Finland. But for the Russian elite supporters of the war, alone, Operation Spiderweb just created another financial burden, but not a personal risk.
That changed less than two weeks later. In Operation Rising Lion, Israel, using its air force, drones, and special operations forces, simultaneously attacked multiple targets at great distance and precisely eliminated the top tiers of Iran’s military and civilian nuclear program leadership. One can imagine that, for the first time, a sense of personal vulnerability occurred in the minds of the Russian financiers and military leadership prosecuting the war in Ukraine.
Personal vulnerability brings fear, stress, hyper-vigilance, and many other emotions, as well as direct financial costs associated with increased personal security. If exploited by Ukraine and its allies, this can create internal pressure and erode public support for Putin’s war. In sum, the psychological impact of Operation Spiderweb and Operation Rising Lion occurring in such close temporal proximity creates an opportunity to bring Russia to the negotiating table.
David Crane, Founding Chief Prosecutor of the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone and Founder of the Global Accountability Project
The most consequential development is the establishment of the Special Tribunal on the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine.
And this is why: it is truly an important moment for justice. The establishment of the Special Tribunal on the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine (the Special Tribunal) marks a remarkable moment in legal history, signaling a commitment to accountability in a world often overshadowed by conflict and aggression. On June 25, 2025, Ukraine and the Council of Europe signed an accord to create this crucial international tribunal, supported by a core group of United Nations member states (the Core Group of Nations). This historic development emerges as a beacon of hope in an age where strongmen often act without fear of repercussion, underscoring a collective determination that aggressors will face justice for their actions.
The impetus for establishing the tribunal stems from ongoing conflicts that have destabilized nations and displaced millions. Ukraine's experience, particularly under the aggression displayed by its neighbor, the Russian Federation, reflects the broader issue of sovereignty and the urgent need for mechanisms that protect it. The tribunal is designed to hold individuals accountable for acts of aggression—actions that threaten the stability of nations and the well-being of their citizens. It emphasizes that those in power cannot act with impunity, signaling to potential aggressors worldwide that there are legal frameworks ready to address and punish acts of international violence.
This tribunal stands as a significant advancement within the European legal framework. By aligning with international law, it situates itself as a complement to existing entities such as the International Criminal Court. However, the Special Tribunal uniquely focuses on the crime of aggression, which has historically been challenging to prosecute due to geopolitical complexities and state sovereignty issues. In doing so, it aims to fill a critical gap in international law, ensuring that acts that are the breeding grounds for wider conflict are recognized and prosecuted.
Moreover, the creation of this tribunal underscores a pivotal message regarding the rule of law. In a global landscape where authoritarianism and hegemonic ambitions often prevail, the Special Tribunal represents a commitment to uphold justice rather than succumb to the whims of might. As the phrase goes, “the rule of law is more powerful than the rule of the gun.” By asserting that legal structures can prevail over brute force, Europe positions itself as a guardian of civilizational values, promoting peace and justice over chaos and oppression.
The tribunal's significance extends beyond its legal implications; it serves as a moral compass for the international community. Its establishment sends a powerful message about the importance of collective action in response to aggression. It invigorates efforts to garner worldwide support for a more peaceful international order rooted in respect for sovereignty and human rights. Nations around the globe are reminded that they share a responsibility to uphold these principles, challenging the allure of power driven by aggression.
The Special Tribunal on the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine represents a watershed moment in the pursuit of justice, emphasizing the need for accountability in international relations. Its formation is not only a commitment to the people of Ukraine but also a declaration that the international community will stand firm against the tyranny of aggression. As such, it enhances the potential for a more just and secure world, reinforcing the belief that through collaboration and dedication to the rule of law, humanity can triumph over the forces of violence.
Joachim Rücker, former Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General and Head of the UN Mission in Kosovo
When it comes to the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, the most consequential development is that it seems that both Russia and, since 2025, the US, are sidelining the United Nations by working on bilateral or multilateral “deals” with no direct link to parallel or at least subsequent talks, let alone negotiations, on new UN Security Council or UN General Assembly resolutions. It seems that, at least so far, Ukraine, a UN founding member, and its European and other allies have withstood this tendency, as evidenced by the central role of point 5 in President Zelensky’s Peace Plan and by coordinated initiatives in New York.
It could be argued that the events from February 2025, when the US switched sides and voted with Russia first in the UN General Assembly and then in the UN Security Council, would be something like a deterrent for continuing to embed developments in the UN system. This, however, could lead to dynamics which would explicitly or implicitly undermine the UN’s role, confirmed time and again including at last year’s Summit for the Future. It would also undermine the central role of point 5 in the Peace Plan, which resonates well with countries beyond the Euro-Atlantic alliance, which have been helpful with various proposals and with attending various peace conference formats, including Bürgenstock, and are expected to make more contributions. In other words: while Russia, and mutatis mutandis the US, might or might not have reasons to sideline the UN, Ukraine and its allies should by all means stay the course, say so very publicly, and multiply their efforts in New York.
When doing so, it might also be helpful to refer to some of the “hidden treasures” in the UN Charter: to Article 27 (3), which would require Russia to abstain from voting in the UN Security Council as it is in fact a “party to the dispute”, and maybe also to Article 109, which foresees a procedure for changes in the Charter. References to the UN General Assembly’s “Uniting for Peace” resolution and to a larger role for the UN General Assembly in cases of UN Security Council blockage, as evidenced in more recent UN General Assembly resolutions and actions (e.g. Emergency Sessions), are also helpful.
In a nutshell, embedding peace initiatives and possible outcomes in the UN system must remain on top of the agenda of Ukraine and its allies, because it is the lifeline to the rule-based international order. New ways of communicating this publicly should be considered.
Ylber Hysa, former diplomat of the Republic of Kosovo
The most consequential development is Ukraine’s recent drone strikes deep inside Russian territory, which have had a significant impact not only on the battlefield but also on the broader peace process. These strikes came at a crucial moment, following Russian President Vladimir Putin’s rejection of an armistice proposal by former U.S. President Donald Trump. This rejection appears to have paved the way for a potential American “green light” for Ukraine’s special operations within Russian borders. The well-planned and carefully executed Ukrainian missions had multiple effects.
Firstly, they showcased Ukraine’s advanced operational capabilities and reaffirmed Kyiv’s commitment to continue resisting Russian aggression. Secondly, these strikes boosted Ukrainian morale and provided a psychological edge over Russian society, while simultaneously reinforcing respect among Kyiv’s international allies. Thirdly, the operations gave the U.S. administration added leverage to maintain pressure on Putin, encouraging a reassessment of his strategy for prolonging the conflict. Importantly, the diplomatic fallout from Trump’s failed armistice offer did not fall on Ukraine, allowing Kyiv to avoid blame or responsibility for that breakdown in talks.
These developments have sparked commentary from foreign affairs analysts, who offer a cautiously optimistic view of the changing dynamics between the Kremlin and Trump. They argue that while Trump is known for his brash and theatrical approach, his influence should not be overestimated. Encouragingly, some signs suggest the emergence of a “special diplomatic operation,” which may help restore communication channels between Putin and Trump and foster sustained contact at other diplomatic levels. This renewed dialogue, however, appears to be extending beyond the conflict in Ukraine, touching on broader U.S.-Russia relations.
Despite these nuanced shifts in diplomacy, the war in Ukraine shows no immediate signs of ending. The situation remains tense, with ongoing hostilities overshadowing the potential for near-term resolution.
Elayne Whyte Gomez, Senior Fellow of the UN Institute for Disarmament Research, Professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and former Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Costa Rica to the United Nations
The most consequential development is the growing fragmentation of the once-strong international response to the invasion of Ukraine, marked by a weakening of Global South cohesion in UN votes—shaped in part by the impact of the war in Gaza.
This is particularly relevant as Ukraine now faces added challenges in an area where it initially held a strong position: broad international support and clear legal standing as a victim of aggression under international law. Since the annexation of Crimea, the UN General Assembly has adopted eight resolutions reaffirming Ukraine’s territorial integrity and condemning acts of aggression. These resolutions assert that no territorial acquisition by force shall be recognized as legal and demand Russia’s full and unconditional withdrawal from Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders.
While the Security Council failed to act in 2022 when the invasion began, this gap allowed the General Assembly to take a firm stance, explicitly labeling the invasion as an act of aggression and expressing broad political and legal support for Ukraine. This momentum was further reinforced by the International Court of Justice, which, under the Genocide Convention, ordered Russia to immediately suspend its military operations. The ICJ’s provisional measures underscored the condemnation of the invasion within the international legal system and added judicial weight to Ukraine’s case.
However, that initial political strength has been undermined by broader geopolitical dynamics—particularly the impact of the war in Gaza, military actions in Syria, and the perceived double standards of Western nations. These factors have fueled discontent in the Global South over the selective application of international law, complicating diplomatic efforts around Ukraine.
By February 2025, on the third anniversary of the invasion and amid continued war in Gaza, the once-solid majority international response was further fragmented by great power rivalry and diverging positions between Europe and the United States became evident at the UN General Assembly, where two competing resolutions were introduced: one by Ukraine with European support, reaffirming the invasion as an act of aggression and calling for accountability under international law; and another by the United States, which stressed a peaceful resolution but omitted any legal framing. The U.S.-led resolution failed to pass, and a weaker legal position was subsequently adopted at the Security Council. Under mounting pressure, many Global South countries abstained from voting on Ukraine’s resolution, underscoring a fragmentation of international consensus. As a result, Ukraine—despite its clear legal position—now faces additional challenges in sustaining broad political support for a resolution grounded in international law.
Milena Sterio, Distinguished Professor of Law at Cleveland State University
The most consequential development is the establishment of the ad hoc Tribunal for Aggression, which is currently being negotiated and created in a partnership between Ukraine and the Council of Europe. The creation of such a tribunal will fill an important accountability gap, by allowing for the prosecution of Russian leaders responsible for the act of aggression vis-a-vis Ukraine.
In the wake of the Russian full-scale invasion against Ukraine in February 2022, the International Criminal Court initiated an investigation into atrocity crimes committed in Ukraine. Although Ukraine is not an ICC member state, it lodged two special declarations accepting the court’s jurisdiction over crimes committed on its territory, which include war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. However, because the crime of aggression within the ICC’s Rome Statute is subject to a narrow jurisdictional regime, requiring both the victim state and the aggressor state to have acceded to the Rome Statute and to the Rome Statute’s aggression amendments, the ICC does not have jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in Ukraine (as Russia, the aggressor state, is not a member of the ICC).
The ICC’s inability to prosecute Russian leaders has created an important accountability gap, by disallowing international prosecutors to impose accountability on those who committed blatant acts of aggression. In fact, as many have already argued, the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine constitutes a manifest violation of the U.N. charter and amounts to a clear-cut case of aggression, in a manner we have not witnessed since the end of World War II and the establishment of our current international legal order. In light of this state affairs, the only way that the crime of aggression can be prosecuted at a supra-national level is through the establishment of an ad hoc aggression tribunal.
Although many in the international community agree that prosecuting aggression committed against Ukraine is important, disagreement had emerged over the modalities of such prosecutions. The United States has supported aggression prosecutions through a hybrid model, where a special tribunal would have been established as part of the Ukrainian legal order. Others, including the most notable aggression experts, had argued in favor of an international model, whereby a tribunal would be created through an agreement between Ukraine and the international community. Yet, despite calls for the establishment of a tribunal, political and legal roadblocks emerged, in the wake of the international community’s “tribunal fatigue.”
Within this context, it is particularly significant that the ad hoc aggression tribunal is being negotiated in a partnership between Ukraine and the Council of Europe. Based on expert conversations, it appears that a draft statute has already been created and that most of the legal groundwork has already been completed. It is now up to the politicians at the Council of Europe to hammer out a political agreement with the Ukrainian leadership to get the tribunal off the ground.
The creation of the ad hoc aggression tribunal is one the most significant and consequential legal and political developments in Ukraine. It signals that the imposition of individual criminal responsibility for Russian leaders who ordered the commission of aggression against Ukraine is on the way. Moreover, it reflects the international community’s political commitment that aggression in the post-World War II arena will not be tolerated.
Chris Goebel, Senior Legal Advisor at PILPG
The most consequential development is the accelerated EU accession screening for Ukraine. The European Union recently completed screening meetings for three negotiation clusters—Fundamentals, Internal Market, and External Relations—with Ukraine set to open formal accession talks by late 2025. This significant progress, confirmed by the European Parliament, follows Ukraine’s robust implementation of anti-corruption and judicial reforms, a key benchmark for Cluster 1 negotiations.
EU integration directly influences peace dynamics by offering Ukraine a non-military "endgame" that counters Russian narratives of geopolitical isolation. Membership talks provide leverage in negotiations: Ukraine can frame compromises as steps toward European standards rather than concessions to Russia. The screening progress also signals Brussels’ commitment, making Ukraine’s EU future a tangible bargaining chip in territorial or security discussions, as noted in the European Council Conclusions of June 2025.
Institutional momentum creates pressure for Russia to engage seriously. With Ukraine on track to complete all cluster screenings by year-end, delays in peace talks could leave Moscow facing a stronger, EU-aligned neighbor. Conversely, the accession process risks stalling if war persists, as reconstruction funds and reforms depend on stability—a subtle incentive for Ukraine to seek faster resolutions.
The development tangentially shifts negotiations toward governance and rule-of-law issues, moving beyond battlefield metrics. For instance, Ukraine’s anti-corruption progress (a screening requirement) could ease Western concerns about post-war accountability.
Michael Kelly, The Senator Allen A. Sekt Endowed Chair in Law at Creighton University School of Law
The most consequential development is the discovery of AI inside the new white Iranian drones (from the wreckage), coupled with better cameras and better communication back to Russian controllers. Drones have quantitatively been a game changer in this war, but now with AI tech, they are poised to be a qualitative game changer as well.
If AI targeting and defensive maneuver adaptations are live, Russian drones become (1) more lethal, and (2) more difficult to intercept. While Russia hasn’t yet achieved scale with these improved devices, that is only a matter of time. Ukraine has not succeeded with similar tech upgrades to their drones - ground commanders consider them unreliable and prefer the older fiber optic drones. But they’d better move fast in this area, otherwise they’ll be in a worse position on the ground and, therefore, a worse position in peace negotiations.
Technological advantage on the battlefield translates into leverage at the negotiating table, much like territorial occupation does. The U.S. proved this point with nuclear weapons in 1945. In Ukraine, the battlefield momentum has already shifted to Russia’s advantage both in terms of territory gained and in ejecting Ukraine from Russian territory - a key negotiating chip that Kyiv had briefly gained but has now lost.
In addition to munitions and financial aid, Europe’s tech heavyweights, Germany and Sweden, should be sharing their capabilities with Ukraine, even if under strict supervision. Negotiations between Berlin, Stockholm, and their corporate tech giants to release newly developed capabilities to Kyiv might be tricky, but the companies must understand that pushing back against the existential threat Russia represents is in their own self-interest. Under Trump, America remains unlikely to be of much use in the AI arms race unfolding in real time across Ukraine.
Leveraging European technical innovation into battlefield drone parity for Ukraine resets the board at least in this aspect of the war and therefore one component of eventual peace negotiations.
Ryan Westlake, Director of Peacebuilding Policy & Strategy at PILPG
The most consequential development in the war in Ukraine has been the rapid and transformative integration of artificial intelligence and advanced technologies into military operations on both sides. This is one of the first large-scale conflicts where AI is not theoretical but fully operational—shaping real-time targeting, intelligence collection, and battlefield autonomy. Both Ukraine and Russia are racing to gain a technological edge, deploying autonomous systems and digital warfare tools that are not only altering the course of the current conflict but also establishing new precedents for how wars will be fought in the future. The rise of AI on the battlefield is redefining military advantage, operational tempo, and strategic depth in ways that may prove more decisive than troop numbers or traditional hardware.
Ukraine has moved swiftly to embed AI into its defense strategy, positioning itself as a hub for military-tech innovation. Palantir Technologies has played a central role, providing AI platforms—free of charge—that now drive the majority of Ukraine’s targeting operations and support war crimes documentation. Major U.S. firms such as Microsoft, Amazon, and Google, along with companies like ClearView AI and Fortem Technologies, have contributed critical capabilities ranging from facial recognition to autonomous counter-drone systems. Ukraine’s Ministry of Digital Transformation has institutionalized this technological surge by embedding software engineers in frontline units and prioritizing AI-enhanced drone development. Even while adhering to Western norms that require human oversight, Ukraine has pushed AI integration to the limits of current policy frameworks.
Russia has also expanded its AI and autonomous weapons programs, particularly in drone warfare. Its Lancet and Shahed-136 drones are increasingly AI-enabled, improving precision and evasion capabilities. With the support of Chinese component suppliers and a new AI partnership with Iran, Russia has scaled drone production and invested in swarming technology and machine vision systems. These capabilities reduce reliance on human operators and allow for real-time target acquisition, paving the way for fully autonomous attacks. Russia’s participation in the BRICS AI Alliance reflects a broader effort to create a parallel technological ecosystem, free from Western export controls and norms.
These developments are not peripheral—they are reshaping the conflict’s trajectory. Ukraine has reclaimed half of the territory lost since 2022 and struck deep into Russian-held areas, enabled in large part by AI-driven targeting and domestically produced drones. Its military-industrial base has grown more than thirtyfold, and its ability to produce advanced systems like the Long Neptune missile underscores a decisive shift in strategic capabilities. Russia, while struggling to match this pace, continues to leverage AI to compensate for conventional limitations. In a war of attrition where traditional measures of power have proven insufficient, it is the race for technological superiority—especially in AI and autonomy—that may ultimately determine the outcome.
Dr. Paul R. Williams, Rebecca Grazier Professor of Law and International Relations at American University
The most consequential development remains the continued timid and tardy application and enforcement of energy sanctions, which has allowed Russia to sustain its war of aggression against Ukraine with funding effectively provided by the global community— most notably, Europe.
Despite a sweeping array of Western sanctions, Russia continues to fund its war against Ukraine through substantial oil and gas revenues, sustained by persistent global demand and loopholes in enforcement. While sanctions were designed to constrain Moscow’s ability to wage war, they have proven porous. Russia has shifted much of its oil trade toward Asia, with China and India now serving as its largest fossil fuel customers. India alone has purchased over a third of Russia’s crude exports since late 2022, while China accounted for nearly 40% of Russia’s fossil fuel revenue in April 2025. Both countries continue to engage in ship-to-ship transfers and rely on a sprawling “shadow fleet” of unregulated tankers, allowing them to bypass Western restrictions while ensuring steady cash flow to the Kremlin.
The shadow fleet—now comprising more than 500 crude tankers—enables covert oil transfers by disabling tracking systems, masking ownership, and operating in permissive jurisdictions. These vessels facilitate the transfer of Russian oil in international waters to ships that deliver it under different documentation and flags. India further launders Russian crude by refining it into petroleum products for re-export, including to the U.S. and EU, without technically violating sanctions. Turkey plays a parallel role, acting as a transshipment hub where Russian-origin oil is refined and rebranded before being exported to Europe. These practices expose significant enforcement gaps in the G7’s price cap and sanctions framework.
Even Ukraine’s strongest political supporters, including the European Union, continue to purchase large volumes of Russian energy. While the EU banned direct imports of Russian crude and refined products in late 2022, exemptions and indirect channels have undermined the impact. Hungary and Slovakia, for instance, continue to legally import Russian crude under special allowances, while France, Belgium, and the Netherlands remain key importers of Russian LNG. Despite the stated goal of reducing energy dependence on Moscow, EU member states spent over €209 billion on Russian fossil fuels between 2023 and mid-2025—more than the total aid they provided to Ukraine. In fact, in 2024, EU purchases of Russian energy generated more revenue for the Kremlin than all EU financial assistance to Kyiv combined.
This ongoing energy trade reveals a central contradiction in the West’s approach to the war. While providing military and financial aid to Ukraine, several countries—through sanctioned-exempt energy imports—continue to bankroll Russia’s war effort. Loopholes in the G7 price cap, reliance on non-G7 insurers, and shadow fleet transactions have allowed Russian oil to fetch well above the intended $60-per-barrel ceiling. Until sanctions enforcement becomes unified, timely, and airtight, the revenue generated from fossil fuel exports will remain a critical financial lifeline for Moscow—undermining the very measures intended to constrain its aggression.
Concluding Observation by Dr. Paul R. Williams
The first half of 2025 has been marked by a series of consequential developments that are reshaping both the battlefield and the broader geopolitical environment in which Ukraine must pursue peace. These developments span military technology, legal accountability, institutional diplomacy, and energy economics. On the battlefield, the rapid integration of artificial intelligence and advanced drone capabilities by both Ukraine and Russia has elevated the strategic importance of technological superiority. From Operation Spiderweb’s strikes deep into Russian territory to the proliferation of AI-enhanced drones and first-person video targeting, battlefield innovation is increasingly determining leverage at the negotiating table. These advances—while providing Ukraine with tactical advantages—also underscore the urgency of securing sustained tech transfers and innovation partnerships, particularly with European allies, as the United States signals retrenchment under a possible Trump administration.
Simultaneously, Ukraine’s accelerated progress toward EU accession and the establishment of the Special Tribunal on the Crime of Aggression reflect powerful non-military pathways for reinforcing peace and accountability. The Tribunal, negotiated with the Council of Europe, addresses the long-standing gap in prosecuting the crime of aggression and signals a renewed commitment to the rule of law as a pillar of postwar order. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s reform-driven advancement through the EU screening process adds political and normative weight to its peace posture, presenting an alternative endgame narrative to Russia’s imperial vision. Yet, this institutional momentum is being tested by shifting global alignments, including the sidelining of the United Nations and inconsistent engagement by key actors like the United States. These trends threaten to erode the multilateral underpinnings of Ukraine’s Peace Formula, especially the centrality of UN frameworks and the broader rules-based international order.
Perhaps the most jarring contradiction of 2025 is the continued failure to enforce energy sanctions effectively. Despite rhetorical commitments to constrain Russia’s war machine, loophole-ridden sanctions regimes have enabled Moscow to finance its aggression with funds funneled through global energy markets—most notably by Europe. India, China, and Turkey further facilitate this flow through refining and transshipment, blunting the intended impact of Western economic pressure. In sum, the summer of 2025 presents a landscape of paradox: battlefield innovation and diplomatic momentum on one hand, and strategic incoherence and funding flows to Russia on the other. For Ukraine and its allies, the path to peace now depends not only on military resilience and diplomatic agility, but on the willingness of the global community to align its principles with its practices.