Summary of the Day – February 27, 2025
As peace negotiations gather momentum, Russian President Vladimir Putin has staked out maximalist territorial demands while simultaneously pursuing a two-track strategy of diplomatic engagement with the Trump administration. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s military has achieved limited tactical successes near Pokrovsk and Toretsk despite continued Russian pressure across multiple fronts. North Korea’s growing involvement in the conflict adds a concerning dimension as Pyongyang gains valuable combat experience while deploying additional troops to Russian-held territory.
Ukrainian volunteers who fled from Russian-occupied territories are making camouflage netting for the Ukrainian military in Dnipro. The nets are crafted in spring colors, as the volunteers do not expect a swift peace agreement with Russia. (Pierre Crom/Getty Images)
Moscow’s Dual Strategy: Rejecting Concessions While Wooing Washington
Putin has drawn his lines in the diplomatic sand with unmistakable clarity. In a February 27 address to Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB), the Russian leader explicitly rejected American negotiating terms while insisting that so-called “Novorossiya”—an imperial-era designation encompassing vast swaths of eastern and southern Ukraine—rightfully belongs to Russia. This maximalist position stands in stark contrast to Trump’s stated requirement that Russia make territorial concessions.
Yet simultaneously, the Kremlin has carefully choreographed its approach to the new American administration. Russian state media outlets revealed they’ve received instructions to portray Trump as “a man who was oppressed” domestically and in Europe, while presenting Putin as extending a welcoming hand to restore relations. This calculated messaging aims to drive wedges between Trump and other Western leaders, particularly those in Europe advocating for stronger Ukrainian security guarantees.
“The actions and policies addressed in these Executive Orders continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,” read a Trump decree extending Russia sanctions until March 2026—a move seemingly at odds with the warming diplomatic engagement.
The Istanbul Connection: Diplomatic Channels Reopen
The Turkish metropolis hosted a significant US-Russian meeting on February 27, the second such high-level encounter in just over a week. While both sides characterized the discussions as focused on bilateral concerns—particularly embassy operations—the timing speaks volumes amid accelerating peace efforts.
Alexander Darchiev, Director of the North American Department of the Russian Foreign Ministry and rumored next ambassador to Washington, headed the Russian delegation. His American counterpart, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Sonata Coulter, represented a Trump administration increasingly criticized for potentially sidelining Ukraine in talks with Moscow.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova struck an optimistic tone, expressing hope that the Istanbul meeting would be “first in the series of similar expert consultations that will move us closer, together with the U.S., in overcoming disagreements and strengthening trust.”
The Mineral Compromise: What Ukraine Gets—and Doesn’t Get
At the center of this diplomatic whirlwind sits a critical minerals agreement between Washington and Kyiv, scheduled for signing during President Zelensky’s White House visit on February 28. The deal establishes a fund to which Ukraine will contribute 50% of proceeds from state-owned mineral resources, including oil, gas, and logistics infrastructure.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky gives a press conference in Kyiv. (Tetiana Dzhafarova/ AFP)
“President Zelensky is coming to see me on Friday morning,” Trump told reporters during UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s visit. “And we’re going to be signing really a very important agreement for both sides because it’s really going to get us into that country, working there.”
What the agreement notably lacks, however, are concrete security guarantees—a critical Ukrainian demand that apparently remains unresolved. Zelensky initially rejected earlier versions of the proposal over this omission but has since indicated that security discussions will continue in separate negotiations.
Meanwhile, France has revealed its own parallel interest in Ukrainian minerals. French Defense Minister Sebastien Lecornu disclosed that Paris has been in discussions with Kyiv since October 2024 regarding the use of Ukrainian resources for the French defense industry, saying these minerals are critical “not for next year, but for the next 30 or 40 years.”
The European Counterbalance: Starmer Presses for Security Assurances
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer arrived at the White House with a clear agenda: securing American backing for a European-led peacekeeping force that could deter future Russian aggression. During their joint press conference, Starmer emphasized that any peace deal must be “backed by strength” and cannot “reward the aggressor.”
U.S. President Donald Trump holds a bilateral meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC. (Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)
“I’m clear that the UK is ready to put boots on the ground and planes in the air to support a deal,” Starmer declared, positioning European nations as willing to assume greater security responsibilities.
Trump, however, maintained his position that a peace agreement must precede any discussion of security arrangements. “The deal has to come first,” he stated, though he expressed confidence that once reached, such a deal would hold. “I have confidence if we make a deal it’s going to hold,” adding that securing Ukraine’s long-term stability would be “the easy part.”
This diplomatic dance comes as European Council President Antonio Costa announced a special EU summit on March 6 dedicated to “European defense and Ukraine,” to which Zelensky has been invited. The agenda aims to prepare EU countries for “the possible European contribution to the security guarantees that will be necessary to ensure a lasting peace in Ukraine.”
The Korean Connection: Pyongyang’s Growing Battlefield Role
North Korea’s military involvement in the conflict has deepened significantly, with reports indicating an additional 1,000 to 3,000 North Korean personnel deployed to Russia’s Kursk Oblast between January and February 2025. This expanded commitment comes as Ukrainian intelligence warns that Pyongyang is gaining valuable combat experience and enhancing its weapons systems through cooperation with Moscow.
Ukrainian intelligence chief Lieutenant General Kyrylo Budanov revealed that Russian specialists have been working with their North Korean counterparts to improve the precision of North Korean ballistic missiles, which initially missed targets by over 1.5 kilometers. Furthermore, North Korean forces have adopted drone warfare tactics that they’ll likely implement upon returning home.
A Ukrainian platoon commander in Kursk Oblast noted distinct operational differences between Russian and North Korean units: “North Korean forces usually attack in groups of 10 to 15 personnel, while Russian forces usually attack in smaller groups of two to three personnel.”
Tactical Chess: Ukraine Claims Limited Advances Amid Continued Pressure
Despite Russia’s overwhelming firepower advantage, Ukrainian forces have achieved modest tactical successes in key areas. Geolocated footage confirmed a Ukrainian advance in southwestern Toretsk, while forces near Pokrovsk reportedly regained control of the village of Kotlyne—a crucial position along the T 0406 highway connecting to Dnipropetrovsk Oblast.
“Russian troops have indeed begun to show some physical, moral, and material exhaustion,” claimed Viktor Trehubov, spokesperson for Ukraine’s Khortytsia group of forces, attributing improved defensive positions to effective Ukrainian drone operations and decreased Russian morale following the start of US-Russian negotiations.
These limited Ukrainian gains stand against a backdrop of continued Russian pressure, with confirmed advances near Kurakhove, where Russian forces pushed into southeastern Kostiantynopil, and near Velyka Novosilka, where Russians recently seized the settlement of Skudne.
The Strategic Horizon: Budanov’s 2026 Prediction
Amidst these complex military and diplomatic developments, Kyrylo Budanov offered a thought-provoking assessment of Russia’s strategic calculations. According to Ukraine’s intelligence chief, Moscow faces a critical deadline.
“According to their strategy, if they don’t get out of this war by 2026, they lose even a chance for world leadership,” Budanov asserted. “They will be left with a maximum level of regional leadership, which they are absolutely not satisfied with.”
The spymaster explained that while Russia can balance its economy through oil, gas, and precious metals exports, the financial cost of the war remains “too high,” preventing Moscow from pursuing the technological development necessary for its broader ambitions, particularly in the Arctic region.
The Human Cost: Civilian Casualties Mount as Infrastructure Targeted
The war’s grim humanitarian toll continues to accumulate. Russian attacks across multiple Ukrainian oblasts killed at least eight civilians and injured at least 18 over a single day. A massive drone barrage overnight saw Russia launch 166 Shahed-type attack drones against Ukraine, with Ukrainian forces shooting down 90 across eleven oblasts.
In Donetsk Oblast alone, Russian strikes killed seven civilians and injured 11, with a particularly devastating attack on Kostiantynivka leaving six dead and 10 wounded. The assault damaged 12 high-rise buildings, 12 shops, and three enterprises.
Meanwhile, the continued targeting of Ukraine’s power infrastructure has reduced generation capacity, forcing rolling blackouts even as winter temperatures remain bitterly cold—highlighting the conflict’s continued impact on civilian populations far from the front lines.
The aftermath of a Russian attack on Kostiantynivka, Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine. (Governor Vadym Filashkin/Telegram)
The Road Ahead: “Quickly or Not At All”
As diplomatic efforts accelerate alongside continued fighting, Trump articulated a stark assessment of peace prospects: “If it doesn’t happen quickly, it may not happen at all.”
This sense of urgency permeates all aspects of the conflict—from battlefield operations to diplomatic maneuvering. Ukraine faces the daunting challenge of leveraging limited military successes into diplomatic strength, while Russia appears intent on securing maximum concessions while preserving its “world leadership” aspirations.
European capitals, meanwhile, prepare for a potentially expanded security role, with Turkey reportedly expressing openness to deploying troops as part of a potential peacekeeping force—a proposal Moscow has yet to formally respond to.
As all parties position themselves for what may be a decisive phase in this protracted conflict, the competing visions for a postwar settlement remain starkly different. The coming weeks may determine whether these divergent perspectives can be reconciled, or if the war will continue beyond a third difficult year.