December 16, 2025

Institute for the Study of War: Russia rejects EU, US pledge of ‘robust’ guarantees for Ukraine 

Institute for the Study of War

The Council of the European Union confirmed that European countries and the United States will provide “robust” security guarantees to Ukraine as part of the peace deal to end Russia’s war in Ukraine.[1]  The Council of the European Union issued a joint statement on December 15 affirming that the United States and European leaders are committed to working together to provide “robust security guarantees” and economic recovery measures for Ukraine in the context of the peace deal. The Council agreed to provide support for the Ukrainian military in peace time; a European-led multinational force composed of forces from the Coalition of the Willing; a US-led ceasefire monitoring and verification mechanism; and a legally binding commitment to take military, diplomatic, and economic measures in the event of Russia’s reinvasion. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reported on December 16 that US and Ukrainian officials discussed legally-binding security guarantees during the talks.[2] Zelensky noted that Ukrainian and US officials will meet in Miami, Florida, to continue discussions about security guarantees, and a US official noted that US and Ukrainian working groups will likely meet over the weekend (December 20 and 21) “somewhere” in the United States, possibly Miami.[3]

The Kremlin explicitly rejected US and European offers to provide Ukraine with “NATO-like” security guarantees as part of a peace deal and continued to signal its unwillingness to compromise on Russia’s territorial claims to Ukraine’s sovereign territory. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov stated in an English language TV interview with ABC News on December 15 that Russia “definitely will not at any moment subscribe to, agree to, or even be content with” any NATO troops in Ukraine, even if these forces are part of a security guarantee or are members of the Coalition of the Willing.[4] Ryabkov also reiterated that Russia would not compromise “in any form” on the five Ukrainian regions that Russia illegally annexed — which includes the entirety of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts and Crimea. Ryabkov notably stated that Russia has “five [regions] altogether,” effectively reiterating the Kremlin’s demand that Ukraine give up unoccupied parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts to Russia, and therefore signaling that Russia remains unlikely to agree to any ceasefire that would freeze the current frontline. Ryabkov reiterated Russia’s theory of victory — which claims that Russia will inevitably win by outlasting Ukrainian resilience and Western support — by stating that the end of Russia’s war in Ukraine depends on when Ukrainian supporters “recognize the inevitable outcome of [Russian] success.” Ryabkov also stated that Russia’s whole “purpose” of war in Ukraine is to have Ukrainians find out that they belong in Russia, effectively restating the Kremlin’s long-term goal of establishing control over Ukraine’s government and its people, not just its land.[5] Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov similarly reiterated on December 16 that Russia wants to “end this war” but seeks to achieve its goals, which ISW assesses include decapitating and replacing the Ukrainian government, destroying the Ukrainian military, and undermining Western unity.[6] Peskov also rejected the Ukrainian-proposed and US-supported idea of a Christmas truce.[7] The Kremlin has been effectively rejecting key points of various peace deal proposals, including the original US-proposed 28-point peace deal, such as reliable security guarantees for Ukraine or territorial swaps.[8]

Russia launched an information campaign to frame the European Union and individual European countries as an enemy of the Russian people, comparable to Nazi Germany, in an effort to further militarize Russian society. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov claimed in an interview with Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting on December 15 that Europe is waging a war “under a Nazi flag” with Russia through European support for Ukraine.[9] Lavrov claimed that European leadership in Belgium, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and the Baltic states is reviving “the theory and practice of Nazism.” Lavrov also claimed that Germany is involved in a “resurgence of militarism” and connected modern Finland to Adolf Hitler and the Siege of Leningrad — likely referring to historically and culturally significant events that invoke historical grievances amongst Russians. Lavrov also compared modern European leadership to historical figures such as Adolf Hitler and Napoleon Bonaparte that represent an existential threat to Russia. Lavrov’s false claims that different European leaders are practicing a nebulously defined “Nazism” are distinct from Russia’s false claims that Ukraine has neo-Nazi leadership, which pertains to Russia’s false claims that Ukraine is engaged in a genocidal campaign against Russian-speaking populations living in the country. Lavrov is leveraging the term “Nazi” to identify modern European countries and their current leadership as enemies of the Russian people and to recall Soviet narratives of patriotism to prepare the Russian population to accept greater levels of sacrifices in the pursuit of the ideological defense of the Russian state for an indeterminate amount of time.

The Kremlin is trying to downplay ongoing Ukrainian counterattacks in Kupyansk as Russian ultranationalist milbloggers continue to acknowledge the severity of the situation for the Russian forces. Ukrainian military sources reported on December 16 that around 200 Russian servicemen remain in Kupyansk and that Russian forces have limited logistics due to successful Ukrainian shaping and interdiction operations.[10] Russian state media has recently vastly platformed statements from Russian military officials and propagandists that downplay the situation in Kupyansk, likely in an effort to uphold a false Russian narrative that Russian forces are imminently collapsing Ukraine’s defense — a narrative aimed at influencing Ukraine and the West to make significant concessions to Russia. Russian state sources, including the Western Grouping of Forces (GoF) and an unnamed source from the Russian Joint GoF, claimed that Russian forces retained control over Kupyansk and accused Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky of falsifying the December 11 video that he took in Kupyansk.[11] Some Russian milbloggers also amplified allegedly geolocated footage that shows two servicemen of the 121st Motorized Rifle Regiment (68th Motorized Rifle Division, 6th Combined Arms Army [CAA], Leningrad Military District [LMD]) reportedly walking in southern Kupyansk, using the video to claim that Russian forces still control the settlement.[12] Other Russian milbloggers, however, continued to criticize Russian state media for failing to adequately cover Ukrainian counterattacks in Kupyansk, with one milblogger even pointing out that Russian state media is relying on the Western and Joint GoFs to conceal the battlefield situation in Kupyansk.[13]

The Russian Black Sea Fleet denied the loss of a Russian submarine as the result of a Ukrainian unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV) strike against the Novorossiysk Naval Base on the night of December 14 to 15 Russian Black Sea Fleet Spokesperson Captain 1st Rank Alexey Rulev claimed on December 15 that Ukrainian reports of the sinking of a Russian submarine in Novorossiysk are false and that no vessels suffered damages in the strike, and Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD)-run TV network Zvezda published footage on December 16 allegedly showing the undamaged submarine.[14] An open-source intelligence (OSINT) analyst assessed that the Ukrainian UUV detonated 20 meters from the Russian Project 636 Varshavyanka-class (NATO Kilo-class) submarine and noted that the Zvezda-published footage does not show the stern of the submarine, which was closest to the explosion site.[15] Another OSINT analyst noted that satellite imagery taken on December 16 shows that the submarine has not moved since the strike, potentially indicating damage to the submarine.[16] Ukrainian Navy Spokesperson Captain Third Rank Dmytro Pletenchuk reported that the Black Sea Fleet now only fields two submarines capable of carrying Kalibr cruise missiles following the strike.[17] Russian milbloggers noted that Ukraine’s ability to conduct a UUV strike inside the ostensibly secure Novorossiysk Naval Base is a serious security lapse, and reported that Ukrainian forces apparently hacked a surveillance camera at the Novorossiysk Naval Base headquarters to provide footage of the strike.[18] ISW cannot assess whether the Ukrainian UUV strike damaged the submarine from the available open-source information at this time.

Key Takeaways

  1. The Council of the European Union confirmed that European countries and the United States will provide “robust” security guarantees to Ukraine as part of the peace deal to end Russia’s war in Ukraine.
  2. The Kremlin explicitly rejected US and European offers to provide Ukraine with “NATO-like” security guarantees as part of a peace deal and continued to signal its unwillingness to compromise on Russia’s territorial claims to Ukraine’s sovereign territory.
  3. Russia launched an information campaign to frame the European Union and individual European countries as an enemy of the Russian people comparable to Nazi Germany in an effort to further militarize Russian society.
  4. The Kremlin is trying to downplay ongoing Ukrainian counterattacks in Kupyansk as Russian ultranationalist milbloggers continue to acknowledge the severity of the situation for the Russian forces.
  5. Ukrainian forces recently advanced near Pokrovsk and marginally advanced near Kupyansk. Russian forces recently advanced in the Dobropillya and Kostyantynivka-Druzhkivka tactical areas.
Share the Post:

Wilson Center

Forced displacement represents one of the most pressing humanitarian issues of our time. Individuals and families, torn from the fabric of their communities, find themselves navigating a world of uncertainty, often without basic necessities or a clear path to safety. There are currently some 110 million forced displaced, and this number is growing by 10 million each year!

At the heart of this crisis are the political triggers. Armed conflicts, ethnic or religious persecutions, and systemic human rights abuses force millions to flee their homes in terror. Many are displaced within their own national boundaries, while others seek asylum abroad. If these factors change as a result of political shifts at home or the pressures from abroad, they can return to their homes. Forced displacement is thus different from environmentally driven displacement, as victims of climate change may never be able to return to their homes.

The ramifications of any sort of displacement are profound, not just for those directly affected, but also for host communities and countries. Overburdened infrastructures, socio-economic strains, and cultural tensions can arise, necessitating comprehensive strategies to foster harmony and integration. Yet the root causes of forced displacement can be remedied with a concerted focus by local players and international diplomacy.

Organizations like Refugees International play a crucial role in this arena, advocating for the rights and needs of the displaced, conducting on-the-ground assessments, and influencing policymakers to take informed actions. Their relentless work underscores the gravity of the situation and the urgency ofinternational cooperation. But they, too, are overwhelmed by the rapid expansion of the crisis.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), with its core principles centered on the protection of civilians during conflicts, plays a pivotal role in this discourse. Yet, despite clear legal frameworks, compliance remains
inconsistent. This initiative emphasizes the importance of upholding and reinforcing these international standards.

It’s not just about recognizing the problem; it’s about active engagement. We urge governments, organizations, and individuals to prioritize the rights and needs of the forced displaced. Through collective efforts, informed policies, and sustained advocacy, we can shift the narrative from passive acknowledgment to proactive intervention.