In recent days, Russia has bombed residential areas in two Ukrainian cities, killing nearly 30 people. Alongside the war, Ukraine is also facing an internal corruption scandal involving senior officials.
Against this backdrop, Donald Trump has reportedly offered President Volodymyr Zelensky a 28-point peace plan. International media report that Ukraine is under heavy pressure from Washington. According to these reports, U.S. officials have threatened to suspend intelligence sharing and halt arms supplies if Ukraine refuses to accept the proposed “peace plan.”
What is happening on the front line, and what could Trump’s “peace plan” change? Batumelebi spoke with retired General Vakhtang Kapanadze, Doctor of Military Sciences, former Chief of the Georgian General Staff (twice), and adviser to the analytical organization GeoCase.
Mr. Vakhtang, Russia continues to attack civilians. On November 19, a Russian missile and drone struck two residential buildings in Ternopil, killing 31 people. Why does Russia target residential areas? What strategic or psychological goals do such attacks serve?
Six missiles hit residential apartment buildings in Ternopil. This was a direct attack on a civilian settlement. The X-101 missiles used in the strike officially have a deviation margin of about 12 meters. Even if it reaches 50–100 meters, it is impossible for all six missiles to miss their targets.
That is why I believe this was a deliberate attack aimed at spreading panic among the population creating fear and war fatigue, increasing public dissatisfaction with continuing the war and with Ukraine’s resistance.
So far, Russia has not achieved this goal. This is not the first such case and, unfortunately, it will not be the last.
The Russians have struck kindergartens, maternity hospitals, and hospitals before. Their hands do not shake this is nothing new for them. This is terrorism in the literal sense of the word: terror meant to instill fear and undermine the moral and psychological resilience of civilians.
Could these attacks be linked to the so-called peace plan? According to Financial Times, representatives of Russia and the United States have developed a peace plan that has already been presented to Ukraine. The plan reportedly demands that Ukraine cede the remaining Donbas territories, including areas currently under Kyiv’s control, halve its armed forces, recognize Russian as a state language, and grant official status to the Russian Orthodox Church. How realistic is it that Ukraine would agree to such terms?
(The interview with Vakhtang Kapanadze was recorded before the peace plan was published and before President Zelensky’s address to the Ukrainian people.)
What we see aligns precisely with this. The strike on residential areas occurred just before the peace plan was presented, likely to increase pressure and make the decision more painful for Zelensky.
As far as I know, Zelensky accepted the document for review. I doubt that the version made public will remain unchanged many elements are likely to be revised. Moreover, much of the information released about this document is very vague.
As I recall, the document does not explicitly state that Russian would become a state language, but rather that Ukrainian and Russian would have equal rights, and that Russian would not be banned in the country.
There are many questions surrounding this peace plan. First of all, how was it drafted without the European Union and NATO? How can the United States assume obligations that involve NATO and the EU?
It is also unclear what is meant by deploying European fighter jets in Poland has Poland agreed to this or not?
What security guarantees would Ukraine receive? There are too many ambiguities.
In my view, this is more a collection of ideas and concepts than a real plan. A plan requires timelines and clearly defined implementers.
It is also unclear why Ukraine alone would have to reduce its armed forces to around 600,000 troops, which is roughly its current strength. Why should only Ukraine reduce its military and not Russia as well? This document does not answer many fundamental questions.
Many aspects will likely be refined, but from my perspective, politics – especially global politics is often far from fair.
In your opinion, is this a plan for peace or a form of capitulation?
We do not yet know what amendments Ukraine will propose.
These are perspectives rather than a finalized plan. Compared to previous ceasefire proposals, this is an even worse option. As a peace document, it is extremely vague.
We should also remember that the EU’s stance toward this document is negative. The EU has stated: how can decisions be made without us, when we are providing funding and support, and when Ukraine is a key component of Europe’s security?
At this stage, I am not ready to give a definitive answer, nor would I advise others to use harsh terminology. The document is open for discussion and has the right to exist, but it contains many flaws and ambiguities.
From a purely military standpoint, if Ukraine were to cede Donbas as demanded, there must be very clear security guarantees, because this would bring Russian forces dangerously close to the Kharkiv region.
Russian control over Donbas would pose a serious military threat to Ukraine. As the saying goes, the devil is in the details. This looks more like intentions and concepts than a concrete plan.
Prior to the leak of information about this document, a corruption scandal involving senior Ukrainian officials emerged. How might this affect the war? Does it weaken Ukraine?
This is primarily a political scandal for the government. I do not believe it will have a significant impact on the front line. Unfortunately, this is not Ukraine’s first corruption scandal such cases surface periodically. I do not think it will have a shock effect. This is better analyzed by experts in other fields.
How would you assess developments on the front line over the past two weeks? Which side holds the operational advantage?
The Russians clearly have the operational initiative. That means they are on the offensive, choosing directions and achieving some advances although these advances are slow.
At the tactical level, there are areas where Ukrainian forces have advantages, can choose tactical actions, and even conduct counterattacks.
The front is very long and extensive. It is impossible to give a single, uniform assessment each sector must be analyzed separately.
The main intensity of fighting is concentrated around the Pokrovsk–Myrnohrad agglomeration, the so-called Pokrovsk pocket, which is currently the most active sector.
Winter is approaching. How will winter conditions affect the dynamics of the front? Who will gain a strategic advantage?
Late autumn and pre-winter conditions are actually more difficult for warfare than winter itself. In winter, the ground freezes, weather conditions stabilize, and visibility improves.
Current foggy conditions allow Russian forces to move more covertly, avoiding drone detection. At the same time, muddy roads hinder the movement of heavy equipment.
This period is more likely to be a preparatory phase for the spring–summer campaign, unless a ceasefire or some form of agreement is reached beforehand.
What is the most critical military resource for Russia and Ukraine, and how does it affect the war?
For Russia, the center of gravity is human resources. For Ukraine, it is Western support.
What is the most likely scenario by the end of 2025 – militarily, politically, and economically?
Ideally, a ceasefire. If fighting continues, Russia may manage to take control of the Pokrovsk–Myrnohrad pocket, although this is not guaranteed. Major changes along the front line are unlikely.
Politically, little will change. The situation will continue much as it is. There is a visible impulse toward peace talks whether it comes from Trump or from Trump in coordination with Russia, that impulse exists. Political developments are likely to continue in this direction.