Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent assertion–delivered with icy clarity–that Moscow will take the Donbas “in any case” is not a bargaining position. It is an ultimatum. The message, if anyone dares to read it, is blunt and leaves no doubt that unless Ukraine accepts Russia’s terms wholesale, the war will grind on until the Putin regime imposes them by force.
Russia’s hardening posture has been evident across every recent diplomatic encounter. The latest US mission to Moscow yielded no shift in the Kremlin’s maximalist demands. Russian officials continue to insist on three immovable pillars: retention of Donbas, severe restrictions on Ukraine’s future military posture, and formal recognition of all Russian territorial gains. President Zelensky has, meanwhile, been cast as illegitimate, effectively removing even the pretence of meaningful talks.
Compounding the danger is Europe’s own struggle to match its rhetoric with action. The EU’s proposal to finance Ukraine’s 2026-27 budget through loans backed by frozen Russian assets (roughly €90 billion out of €137 billion) was a bold attempt to convert solidarity into strategy.
Yet the political backlash was swift. Belgium’s new government baulked, citing legal and financial risks, and others quietly signalled similar concerns. Because unanimity is required, any one dissenting state can stall the entire initiative.
Across the Atlantic, uncertainty deepens the void. US President Donald Trump has repeatedly floated a peace plan that appears more aligned with Russian preferences than with established and much-talked-about Western security interests.
No European capital is (from the looks of it) prepared to assume long-term protection under a shifting American political landscape. This reality explains why even Britain, despite being the most Atlanticist voice in Europe, is now scrambling to rebuild and reanchor its continental security ties.
The Donbas confrontation has, thus, become more than a regional struggle. It is now a test of the international order, of whether borders still carry meaning and whether sovereignty remains a principle rather than a negotiable privilege.
If territorial conquest is rewarded, the precedent will echo far beyond Eastern Europe, emboldening revisionist powers from the Caucasus to the Middle East to Asia.
That is why the world cannot afford ambiguity.
Ukraine’s resistance has already imposed limits on Russian ambition. But resistance alone cannot uphold an international order. Such responsibility rests with the states willing to defend the foundational principle that borders cannot be changed by force. *