The situation in the special military operation zone could shift again by the end of 2024, according to Vasily Kashin, a leading analyst at the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies in the Higher School of Economics at National Research University. In a conversation with Lente.ru, he outlined what he sees as the likely trajectory of the conflict and the strategic thinking guiding both sides as the year closes. Kashin emphasizes that the tempo of events will depend on how both sides balance political aims with military realities, and on how external powers shape the wider strategic environment around Ukraine.
He argues that the Armed Forces of Ukraine will concentrate their available resources on fortifying defenses and sustaining readiness for a broader confrontation. The Ukrainian command is believed to be pursuing a dual objective: drain Russian capabilities through sustained resistance while seeking to maximize any gains on the battlefield that could translate into political leverage. In Kashin’s view, Kyiv and its allies may push for a ceasefire along the front lines that preserves the possibility of Ukraine joining Western security architectures, including NATO, without immediate concessions on key territories. Such a settlement would likely be paired with continued political pressure on Russia and a long horizon for reaching strategic goals through diplomacy or renewed hostilities if negotiations falter.
From Kashin’s perspective, Russia will attempt to achieve a strategic stalemate that limits the ability of Kyiv to gain decisive advantage while preparing for a sustainable confrontation. The analyst stresses that Moscow should move carefully, assess risks, and steadily improve positions across multiple sectors. The focus, he says, is to deliver decisive blows to Ukrainian forces and to erode Ukraine’s economic capacity to sustain the war effort. An important element of this approach is expanding military production to ensure a balance of power capable of ending the current phase of the conflict. He suggests that these dynamics could come into sharper relief by the end of 2024, shaping the near-term options for both sides. He also notes that the pace of military readiness and industrial output will be critical for the durability of any potential pause or escalation in hostilities.
In a separate briefing, John Kirby, the coordinator for strategic communications at the White House National Security Council, reiterated a position commonly heard in Washington. He stated that the foundation for any negotiations regarding Ukraine would be Kyiv’s acceptance of the terms under consideration by the United States and its partners. This stance underscores the role of political alignment with Kyiv’s conditions as a prerequisite for any diplomatic process, while security and financial assurances remain tightly linked to the support provided by the United States and its allies. The broader message is that Washington seeks a settlement that Kyiv can publicly endorse and sustain, with any future steps depending on Kyiv’s readiness and backing from international partners. The broader implication is that Western backing will be essential to shaping the terms and the timeline of any potential agreement. The discussions around the need for ongoing assistance, including financial support, complicate negotiations and influence the posture of both sides on the ground.